William: How about sentimental - that which appeals primarily or particularly to the emotions? Whether the experience of sentmentality is valued or rejected will depend on the experience and values of the perceiver. I maintain that it is somewhat up to you what a photograph means to you. Your care for your children is part of your nature, as is your regret regarding the loss of the past. For you, it appears that photographs of your children appeal to your sentiments. The appeal may be positive or negative, according to characteristics of your thinking. The same image may have no sentimental appeal for someone else. Other factors which might determine whether an expression or image of sentimentality is valued or rejected would include the sophistication of the perceiver (children and others with limited experience/education will prize images differently); contemporary values (Bouguerau and colleagues are no longer respected by many) and context (is the image transparently intended to influence you to buy a product or service). Bela C
----- Original Message ----- From: "William Conger" To: [email protected] Subject: Re: The good sort of sentimentality Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 07:47:10 -0800 (PST) Michael, you didn't convince me. Sentimentality needs to be more carefully defined. For instance, let's separate the raw emotion, whatever it is, from symbols intended to evoke that emotion. When I look back to snapshots of my kids when they very young, I am filled with sentimentality, a longing even. That can't be bad. Yet, with a bit of reflection I'm aware of the idea that photos always evoke a degree of melancholy, a degree of self pity, because they image the irrecoverable past. The self pity part, my irrecoverable past, is not good because it separates me from reality, not for creative purposes -- I mean not for the benefits of being better able to cope with reality -- but only for the sake of encasing me in self-pity masked as longing. I can follow your religious examples but I am troubled by your assumption that the religious leaders had the deep psychological insight you ascribe to them. The increase in depictions of the crucifixion, for instance, began to increase during the years of the black plague, when everyone was distraught by the suddenness and overwhelming trauma of the disease. I'm not suggesting a direct connection but the concept of death was uppermost in peoples' minds and therefore was a timely subject in a wide variety of imagery, religious and otherwise. As for the holy cards, baseball cards, pornography references, what they have in common is their functions in material culture. Perhaps we should ask what role sentimentality has in pervasive material culture. To what extent are the tropes of material culture signified by such items as you mention. Let's add Christmas cards, or greeting cards of all sorts, or even calling cards, business cards, anything that symbolizes some unity between the card and its owner or giver and recipient. It comes down to a matter of values, how one values oneself and another or others. Is that sentimentalism? I need to have a better understanding of sentimentality. If it's so bad, all bad, then why is it so pervasive as something loveable? Is this Cheerskep's "cherishable"? WC --- On Tue, 1/20/09, Michael Brady wrote: > From: Michael Brady > Subject: Re: The good sort of sentimentality > To: [email protected] > Date: Tuesday, January 20, 2009, 9:05 AM > On Jan 19, 2009, at 11:34 AM, Chris Miller wrote: > > > Would anyone care to offer some positive examples of > sentimentality in any of > > the arts ? > > > Would anyone besides William characterize this > "good sort" as "rooted in > > values and human perseverance in reality"... > > > And wouldn't you say that all three versions are > "steeped in sentimentality" ? > > [Okay, William, you asked, for it: you got it! I was > working on this when your message of an hour ago arrived.] > > The word "sentimentality" carries a great weight > of disapproval with it: Kinkade, big-eyed children, and > cuddly puppies. So-called sentimental portrayals appeal > immediately to feelings of bathos and pity and seem to > quickly by-pass reflection and contemplation. > > If you are looking for examples, you must carefully and > precisely describe what you refer to as > "sentimentality." Merely using it to designate > strong feelings is not enough, as you point out. But, if you > name a certain cluster or nexus of feelings as > "sentimentality," then it's easier to identify > exemplars of it. > > For example, if you are looking for artworks that > "represent scenes from Christian orthodoxy and history > in a pleasing and serious way," well, that category > could include every holy card ever printed. If you add > "so that you identify or feel close to the > figure," then you get closer to "sentimental" > kinds of holy card scenes, closer to kitsch. Holy cards > appeared in the 19th century, as newer, mechanized printing > spread cheap products to many people. The style of holy > cards emulated that of contemporary, popular Victorian art, > a lot of which was in the Beaux Arts and Academic styles > (although, ironically enough, Durer's "Praying > Hands" eventually became quite popular in the 20th > Century > > Let's think of other categories of > "sentimental" images: icons and baseball cards ... > and pornography. > > In my experience, religious icons don't convey much of > the "sentimental" identification, the > heart-warming connection to or nostalgia for what is > portrayed. Indeed, icons are made to be vehicles of > meditation through which the individual connects to the idea > or referent behind the image. Icons might easily show a > dolorous scene, as in the Stations of the Cross, or > saints' images in an iconostasis. But one wouldn't > encounter the writhing of St. Teresa in Ecstasy, as Bernini > envisioned. > > Note that in early post-Constantine Christian iconography, > the resurrected or triumphant Christ was portrayed far more > often than the dead Christ, because the Church wanted to > direct the faithful's attention to the theme of > resurrection, not to the pain of the Passion. To show Christ > nailed to the cross would evoke great empathy and, > worrisomely, perhaps instill great doubt and fear in the > faithful. Later, when the Church was more confident of > itself, portrayals of the Crucifixion became more common. I > believe this betrays the worry of the Church leaders that > the unlearned faithful would respond more > "sentimentally" to the images, respond with more > visceral identification and empathy. > > Judaism and, later, Islam forbade the portrayal of humans: > They chose iconoclasm (breaking of images) to thwart the > power of the image--idolatry--to entice people and hold sway > over their emotions. Idolatry holds out the seduction of > sentimentality. Pornography is perhaps the most powerful > genre of sentimentalism--the immediate, direct, unfiltered > impact of a preformed emotional response. > > Baseball cards, on the other hand, while they seem to work > in some ways like icons, actually provoke the viewer (boys) > to "identify" with the player and emulate the > stance, the glower on the face, the grip on the bat, of the > "hero." Thus, they tend be a hybrid: baseball > cards have both a "sentimental" component and > simultaneously the dispassionate element of an icon. > > Hero stories and portrayals come closer to the > sentimentality you speak of. > > In any event, the strong "sentimental" feelings > are rooted in how one feels about what the story portrays or > signifies--the descent from the cross, e.g.--and less about > its form, its manner of making, its "style." > > BTW, these remarks don't even take into account > photography and movies, which are fraught with > "sentimentalism," as witness virtually every > "big studio" movie since "Birth of a > Nation." > > | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | > Michael Brady > [email protected]
