de Buffon and Reynolds

Comte de Buffon

Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon (1707-1788) was a French naturalist and encyclopedic author. Although he was a member of the prestigious French aristocracy and studied such subjects as mathematics, medicine, and law, his real interest was in nature and he was never content with the existing explanations of the natural world. Thus, due to his refusal to accept these certain explanations, he formulated his ideas and produced his own account of nature. For that, he is remembered by posterity for his highly comprehensive Histoire Naturelle, générale et particuliére (1749-1788). Among his participation in other schools devoted to art, he was invited to become a member of the Académie Française in 1753, the same year in which he wrote the Discourse on Style. True to his naturalist ways of thinking, he asserted in the essay that Nature was perfect and the ideal.

de Buffon's Discourse on Style

In this essay, de Buffon defines style as "the order and movement according to which a man arranges his thoughts." (319). He goes about mentioning things that will add to the style of your writing. The list includes:

• tight thoughts will lead to concise style, whereas loose thoughts will lead to a dragging style.
• there should be no divisions or interruptions in your writing that would detract from making it clearly understood (think: HUST essays!)
• comparing perfect nature with proper writing, de Buffon shows that true contemplation of nature will give rise to "the most sublime truths."
• in order to write well, you must possess your subject fully.
• truth is an important element that will lend to your style.
• therefore must write only about values that are important to us, that we fully believe in.

Consider, for example, our HUST papers. We cannot go about writing our papers without a plan or an outline. It wouldn't make any sense, the ideas could be all over the place, it probably wouldn't have any structure, and the point you are trying to get at would not be obvious. We also cannot write about something we do not believe in, or about something we have not read. In de Buffon's view, these would all be things to avoid.

Discourse on Style Discussion Questions

1. Do you agree with de Buffon's ways for achieving proper style? Why or why not?

2. Are there any other important steps in achieving enlightened style? In other words, what did de Buffon definitely leave out?

--

Reynolds, Discourse on Art

This selection I found more difficult to understand and more convoluted than the piece from de Buffon. I will try my best to narrow it down (and hopefully stay true to style!).

Reynolds begins by saying that the aim of art is to please. Taste is fixed in the nature of things. Nature, for its part, has a set template, apparently. There is a "set way" that nature should look, like a beautiful woman, for example. To him, we are supposed to paint (or whatever form of art) the most ideal and the most beautiful. A deformity, on the other hand, "is not nature, but an accidental deviation from her accustomed practice." (347). That's what you don't want to paint, what is bad taste. Good taste, then, you have to discover of your own accord. There exist inherently good qualities, and we have to use our enlightened reason to figure out what those are. Then, to keep up with the painting example, we will be able to produce a painting that reflect's nature's highest ideals. A good (and tasteful) painting would be well-proportioned and geometric, for example. I guess something completely unnatural would be wrong, because taste would then not agree with nature. A purple tree, maybe. In the end, I think we would all end up liking the same paintings and other works of art if we all had Reynolds' idea of proper taste.

The difference between taste and genius lies in that genius is the same thing, only plus the powers of execution. The art critic would then have discernment, but the painter would have discernment plus execution.

Basically, I have a problem with the biased way he views taste. It is as if you must learn taste, because the first opinions we receive are not the best - and therein lies the pursuit of taste. It can be either beautiful or deformed. I don't see why I or anyone else would have to adjust my ideas of taste to fit with that of Reynolds. In that case then I suppose many of history's great minds were tasteless. I don't see where Reynolds, while he had some good ideas, became the world's foremost authority on Art.

Discourse on Art Discussion Questions

1. Do you find Reynolds' ideas about taste at all restrictive, and that taste really can depend on many factors and can vary, for example, between cultures? Or, do you think that you can certainly be liking the wrong type of painting and that your taste needs some re-evaluating?

2. Where do you suppose you would learn about these "inherent good qualities" that Reynolds says would lead to having good taste?