Is he right?

[Anonymous No.13179224]

In a skilful poet's versification the so-called bad or inferior lines are not inferior because he could not do them better, but because he feels that if all were equally weighty, there would be no real sense of weight anywhere; if all were equally melodious, the melody itself would be fatiguing; and he purposely introduces the labouring or discordant verse, that the full ring may be felt in his main sentence, and the finished sweetness in his chosen rhythm.[68]
>And continually in painting, inferior artists destroy their work by giving too much of all that they think is good, while the great painter gives just enough to be enjoyed, and passes to an opposite kind of enjoyment, or to an inferior state of enjoyment: he gives a passage of rich, involved, exquisitely wrought colour, then passes away into slight, and pale, and simple colour; [...] you have had as much as is good for you

[68]
“A prudent chief not always must display
His powers in equal ranks and fair array,
But with the occasion and the place comply,
Conceal his force; nay, seem sometimes to fly.
Those oft are stratagems which errors seem,
Nor is it Homer nods, but we that dream.”
Essay on Criticism.

[Anonymous No.13179242]

I've never seen a man smile in an old portrait-photograph like that. He seems based.

[Sage No.13180138]

>>13179224
Of course he's right, but it's a structural feature inherent in the nature of say music, as well as music and painting, but all for different reasons.

Quickly, music can't all be crescendo because there would be no line of development at all, which is the sine qua non of all music for most of human history in all cultures. Besides that, sound itself and the instruments that produce it, always modulate the tone "naturally." (Except electronic implements that could indefinitely produce a note or chord I suppose but nobody listens to that as 'music').

In writinf, grammer works in such a way that a variety of words have to be strung together, likewise a variety of sentence which have some causal relation, in order to produce a narrative. Some of these are naturally conjunctive and not inherently dramatic, but required to link two different scenes (or whatever you want to call them) coherently.

Painting the same with colour, depth of field etc. It naturally varies itself, even in Rothko. Of course their are paintings by Newman et al which are single intense tones but they are very controversially considered art, and, for the most part, if they are considered art, it is in the formal contradiction the offer to properly composed art and in effect extra-artistic because they rely on conceptual extra-artistic rationalisation.

[Anonymous No.13180159]

>>13180138
>sound itself and the instruments that produce it, always modulate the tone "naturally."
>grammar
he's not talking about microscopic things like that

[Sage No.13180226]

>>13180159
You can't make art without a variation of structural elements into a variety of scopes which interrelate (this is all approximate language), from which all larger structures are developed. I doubt he even gives proper examples of what is good beyond preference or what is a mishmash of ungradiated structural elements. It's highly ironic that these remarks come from Ruskin, in light of his love of Rubens and Turner.

[Anonymous No.13180231]

>>13179242
They probably thought of it as a serious thing or something

[Anonymous No.13180238]

>>13180226
don't see why this post is a reply to and not a standalone post but okay

[Anonymous No.13180253]

"I am a bad poet and I admit to it"

[Anonymous No.13180272]

>>13179224
Yes, he's right. It's not following the rules that makes good art, but breaking them.

[Anonymous No.13180279]

>>13180272
that's not what he's saying...?

[Anonymous No.13180302]

>>13180279
Don't be dumb, and to clarify I don't mean "official" rules. I mean the ones you create in your own work. You set a pattern then enhance it by making it stand out, usually by breaking the pattern where not anticipated.

[Anonymous No.13180331]

>>13180302
>Don't be dumb,
okay, I won't

[Sage No.13180343]

>>13180238
Because I'm replying to the comment that stated 'he's not talking a lot microscopic things' (whatever that actually meant; colour, words, sentences and tones aren't microscopic); clarifying that in art all macro features are predicated on structural features which necessitate variation.

[Anonymous No.13180346]

>>13180331
This your first time?

[Anonymous No.13180349]

>>13180343
OKAY

[Anonymous No.13180363]

>>13180346
I think I had a time with my uncle when I was little
he told me not to tell anyone but he's dead now so whatevsers

[Anonymous No.13181665]

classic rhetoric rule: put too much effort in minor points and it will detract from the main points, ruin whole effect.

but there are counterexamples like carpaccio's paintings where almost everything seems essential.

another technique is making the main point even weaker then the rest, inverting the original principle, like in some romantic music.

[Anonymous No.13181772]

>>13180331
where2cop?

[Anonymous No.13182867]

>>13181772
girl or dress?