got hooked again to the internet just today, and it was refreshing to browse
through the recent articles in telusa-archives. Particularly, I immensely
enjoyed Kumar Vadaparty's analysis on aesthetics and practical use, perhaps,
because I too share the familiarity and love for all the three fields that
he related viz. literature, maths and comp science.
On Mon, 15 Apr 1996 Kumar Vadaparty wrote :
> Sitaramayya Ari says:
>> Should good poetry or literature really last long?
>> Can't good literature be short lived?
>> Is long-lived literature necessarily good literature?
[Deleted portions of the article where I've nothing else to say than "I agree"]
> Thus, what I 'd like to say is that there are at least 2 metrics that are
> orthogonal to each other:
>
> 1. Aesthetics
> 2. Practical use (or, social commitment).
Now, apropos Sitaramayya gaari questions, can we define the longevity of the
literature as a function of the above two variables ? Or mathematically put,
what portions of the orthogonal plane (containing the above scales) do
short-lived literature and long-lived literature occupy ? Can we assume that
a higher value on the aesthetics-axis means longer life for that literature ?
Then, what is the contribution of social-commitment/practical-use to the
longevity of the literature ? (I don't think Kumar garu is saying that
aesthetics = longevity ?)
[ We can discuss the same problem slightly differently, by speculating on
how the values of above two metrics, that determine the importance of the
literature, vary as the time varies; but that would be a digression. ]
Or, we can simply consider the two orthogonal components of any literature
as "What (is presented)?" and "How (is it presented)?" Here, aesthetics can
be equated to "How".
While we can safely assume that good aesthetics is an essential requirement
for the longevity of a literature, the variance in the value, with respect
to time, for "what" is presented largely depends upon the nature of the
contents of that literature.
If a literature has a contemporary issue as the central theme, then that
literature would be of practical use as long as that issue is relevant.
It loses its relevance and importance once the issue becomes a non-issue,
unless there exists an underlying message in "what" is presented, that has
a transcendental value.
If the literature explicitly speaks on the matters of fundamental nature,
as much of the philosophical and religious texts do, then we may say that
such literature may find readership during all the periods of the time.
But again, if the theories propounded in these texts are refuted or replaced
with better theories, these texts may lose importance.
Some literature could be remembered and revered purely in the historical
context, for the great influence it had in the bygone era. Also, there is
another category of literature that uses imaginary time frame for its
naration like cartoons, fairy tales and mythologies etc. So "what" is
presented in them, would not easily lose relevance with the time. And of
course, we know that the literature can be is long-lived for the simple
reason that it is already long-lived.
That was just a ramble of assorted thoughts and an attempt to see what factors
determine the longevity of a literary piece. Anyways, I agree with Ari gaaru
that short-lived literature can also be a great literature and long-lived
literature need not necessarily be great.
> To judge aesthetic value is very very hard. Even for the scholars and experts.
> For, it is very subjective. I can only say that I think Potana had the
> best of aesthetic values in telugu poetry that I know of.
Here, I am tempted to say that tastes are subjective but the quality is
objective. But then, where do we draw a line between taste and quality ?
Also any attempt to define these two terms, I think, will lead us to the
language problems that Ramarao gaaru spoke about a while ago.
>
> Kumar.
>
Regards,
Suresh.
-- Caveats: Fundamentals interest me, but I am not a fundamentalist <g>. Nature appeals me, but I am not a naturalist. Study of individuals attracts me, but I am not an individualist. Whole is greater than sum; no man is an island; structure of society and attitute of humans can be altered for better; (but "material" is not the sole basis for compassion/conflict); literature not only just interprets the world, but also influences. I am atleast familiar with the terms of language universals, syntactic judgements, collective unconscious; and with my rudimentary knowledge, I tend to believe in them all.