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?

Tartuffe

I think it's amazing that a play that was originally written in French was able to be translated while preserving the rhyme. Truly amazing.

Loving the play. It's actually hilarious ("Tartuffified;" "Miss Smarty Pants").

Also a theme I am wondering about in the play: practical/rational vs. absurdity/irrationality. It keeps coming up... so does honor...

This post will be edited later.

--

Okay, I'm back. To continue my thought on rationality and irrationality, I think it's a major part of the play. The characters seem to be divided into these two groups: people like Cléante and Dorine are always there to be logical and rational, and constantly pointing out the inconsistencies and irrationality of people like Madam Pernelle and, especially, Orgon. Even Orgon admits that his emotions got the best of him, indicating that was why he was so irrational: "Emotions got the best of me, it's true" (V, iii, 75.) The "irrational" people are made so by their contradictions, exaggerations, and absurd ideas, such as when Tartuffe claims that "Because our reputations are our wealth." (III, iv, 133). There are really tons of different points in the play when the practical people are pointing out the failed logic of the impractical ones.

Speaking of Tartuffe, however, he is an interesting character throughout the play because I think it's hard to fit him in either the rational or the irrational category. I guess on the outside he would seem insane (to the logical types like Dorine and Cléante, at least). But on the inside, if he knows he is fooling people like Orgon, I wonder if that makes him clever. I think that Tartuffe manages to escape rationalism via hypocrisy and irony, as seen for example in Act IV, Scene 1. I laughed when Tartuffe says (IV, i, 23-24),

"Heaven's best interests will have been served,

When wrongdoers have got what they deserved."

Ironic, right? It's like he won't even admit to being crazily irrational. SOMEONE'S in denial! I still have to point out my favorite "Tartuffe is irrational" part (IV, v, 119-122):

"There'll be no sins for which we must atone,

'Cause evil exists only when it's known.

Adam and eve were public in their fall.

To sin in private is not to sin at all."

SERIOUSLY, Tartuffe?! If you're so pious, you would know that God is all-knowing and all-powerful. Do you even hear the words that are coming out of your mouth? Do YOU even believe what you say, or are you just trying to fool Elmire, along with everyone else? What a loser.

In the end, I enjoyed how the tables turned for Orgon too when he saw for himself what Tartuffe was really like, and thus became exasperated when trying to explain that to his mother (Madam Pernelle).

My favorite "logical" scene, as I like to think of it, came at the end of Act V, Scene 5 (lines 9-12). This is just after Madam Pernelle realizes everything about Tartuffe, and Dorine has something to say about the material wealth Orgon and his family has. She says,

"Because men are corrupted by their wealth.

Out of concern for your spiritual health,

He's taking, with a pure motivation,

Everything that keeps you from salvation."

LOVE IT! Even though, yet again, Orgon asks her if she has tired of him saying "Quiet!" to her, Dorine has presented us with the best logic ever. HA! LOGIC WINS AGAIN! How does THAT feel, Tartuffe?! Great play!

Milton in Art, Part II

Sin, Death, and the Devil, 1792, James Gillray

Okay, okay. Last one, I promise. After Sarah wondered what the key meant in the Blake watercolor, I was trying to find out and came across this. How cool is this caricature? It's from the political satirist James Gillray, and according to the website I found it from, it parodies the quarrel between Prime Minister Pitt (Death) and Chancellor Thurlow (Satan), with Queen Charlotte in the middle (Sin), protecting Pitt. I think it's hilarious, and it was probably really offensive to the portrayed parties. I hope we get to this section in Cultural History because now I want to know more about the political context behind the painting.

Death, continued

In Book X that we had read for Thursday (class discussion was obviously a little limited that day), a big part of the action of the book is the decision on Adam's part - and eventually Eve's - to confess their sins and beg for repentance/forgiveness. Repentance was and is a huge theme of many of the books we have read both this semester and previously. Because Adam and Eve ask God for forgiveness, they manage what Satan did not, because he would rather "reign in Hell than serve in Heaven."

I feel like we have sort of seen this coming from the previous books, because although Satan is inherently evil (as evidenced by his contorted face even when assuming the form of a cherub), there was always that one shred of jealously and hatred that made him wish so badly to want to live in Paradise as the humans did. If he had only repented as a result of his despair (fear?) as they did, I wonder if he might have ended up differently.

Considering that, is Satan the Hero of this book? A lot of the action is focused on him. Maybe his stock "fatal flaw" was in this inability to feel remorse. Maybe it's Adam and/or Eve. Does a hero need to be a good person? Or can he literally be the Devil? If this is the case then I think Milton was pretty bold to make Satan the hero of his book in such times.

Milton in Art

William Blake, Satan, Sin, and Death, 1808, Watercolor.

Just wanted to share this interesting image of Paradise Lost. It is Blake's rendition of Satan, Sin, and Death, and I like it because it is so luminous and bright. Instead of being completed with oil-based paints, it is a watercolor, which allowed Blake to portray Death as that terrible transparent shadow (in line with the way Milton described Death). There is also a lot of movement in it, and I especially like the creepy serpent coiled around at the bottom. Do you like it?

Paraíso Perdido

Wood engraving: Gustave Doré, 1866.

Satan's Descent. Isn't this an eerie picture?

We have been talking a lot in class about the concepts of light and dark, but there was one thing I did not have a chance to bring up on Thursday. I thought I would draw everyone's attention to the concept of the Tree of Knowledge. In Book IV, lines 510-520, we are told how Satan sees Adam and Eve walking and becomes very jealous of them (I like Milton's portrayal of Satan's complexity, by the way). I must be honest when I say I am not sure who is talking at that point, because at first I thought it was Satan, miserably watching as Adam and Eve are "imparadised in one another's arms," but the lines I wanted to discuss are these:

"...all is not theirs it seems:

One fatal tree there stands of knowledge called,

Forbidden them to taste: Knowledge forbidd'n?

Suspicious, reasonless. Why should their Lord

Envy them that? Can it be sin to know,

Can it be death?..."

I highlighted those as I was reading, because I think something remains to be said for the phrase "knowledge forbidd'n," and the possible consequences for Adam and Eve having gained it (sin, or possibly death). What kind of knowledge is this? Does the Knowledge (capital K) differ for Adam and for Eve? What about Knowledge of the truth of God (or, maybe like we discussed, "light?") Therefore, I wonder if Knowledge would then be equated with "shame," "perversion," or "sin." Although I cannot offer a definitive answer in this blog, maybe we could talk about this kind of apparently forbidden Knowledge more in class. What do you think that Knowledge could mean in any of these cases?

Why does war remain...

...the so-called profession of kings? Why does war seem to be necessary for "glory?" What kind of glory is that? I am referring to the discussion I brought up in Cultural History on Friday... I cannot get past that whole "seeking glory through the agency of military conquest." Wouldn't a king be taking a huge gamble by embarking in warfare? I guess "glory" would only be achieved in the case of whopping success. Does that mean shame for failure in military pursuits? That just doesn't seem to make much sense to me, I suppose.