I'm always opposed to these sorts of statements. They all have the ring of retro conservatism. They are a plea for the return of something that once comforted their authors. The onrush of the new is like a flood bringing all sorts of unsorted and entangled debris ashore, worthless stones and a few gems. It is better to be probing in this flotsam than to be re-polishing the few gems already found in an old flood.
Also, what is imagination if not fancifulness run riot? And...any ornament can be a mere ornament until is is perceived as something else. The responsibility for turning fancifulness and mere ornament into something more profound rests with the beholder who is capable of metaphorical thinking. The things themselves are meaningless until that happens. Mr. Jonston's lament is directed to what he sees and what he sees is the blankness of his own metaphorical capability. Too bad. He failed to use his mind. Come on Berg, give up this fuddy-duddy yesterday stuff and play the game of metaphor! The new -- in its total meaninglessness, is a rich opportunity for discovery. wc ----- Original Message ---- From: joseph berg <[email protected]> To: aesthetics-l <[email protected]> Sent: Tue, December 20, 2011 2:15:40 AM Subject: "No imagination, but only fancifulness running riot, bringing forth lavish ornament for mere ornament's sake: making for mere ostentation, which can only bring a freeting sense of unrest, by no means to be cured by fresh extravagances outstripping th - No imagination, but only fancifulness running riot, bringing forth lavish ornament for mere ornament's sake: making for mere ostentation, which can only bring a freeting sense of unrest, by no means to be cured by fresh extravagances outstripping the first. (1900, Charles Johnston)
