[lit-ideas] Re: Happiness or Meaning?
- From: "John McCreery" <john.mccreery@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 10:41:20 +0900
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 10:03 AM, David Ritchie <ritchierd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
> What I was trying to suggest is that the works I cited simplify into
> equations what cannot and should not be so simplified. They do this in
> order to make sentences engaging. I wrote, "Fiddle with the formula and you
> have a sentence that plays." "Plays," rather than, "is true."
>
That is certainly true. I wondered myself if too close an homage to Tolstoy
made the opening ring false.
>
> John persists, asking whether there is truth in the phrasing he quotes, and
> suggesting that we've never grown out of Romantic notions that suffering and
> meaning go hand in hand, and that happiness is an empty or lite state. I
> have argued before, on this list I think, that happiness is the least
> well-examined subject in art. We have lots and lots of art that takes
> misery and darkness on, and finds meaning in suffering. We have very little
> art that shows us how complex our notions of happiness are.
>
Oh, yes, oh, yes, indeed. Care to elaborate on some of the complexities you
see? That would be a fascinating topic to discuss.
>
> I think happiness is a very difficult subject. That's why I tried to write
> a novel about it. I also tried a seminar on the history of happiness. And
> I've been wondering about the subject in paintings. I've no great success
> to report. Angry brush strokes are easy; "happy, happy trees" easier yet.
> Maybe somewhere between Sam Francis and Rothko, there's a way forward?
>
Please explain: Rothko I know; I have been in the Rothko room at the
Phillips in Washington, D.C.. But I am not familiar with Sam Francis.
John
Other related posts:
