William: On the other hand .... I view (that view of) sentimentality as a bitter-sweet experience. As much as an image may invoke a dead moment, it is also an enduring evocation of what may have been a precious moment with deeply cared for persons, a way of recalling more vividly than would otherwise be possible a time that has passed - but did occur and cannot be taken from one's experience, in spite of however vastly circumstances may have changed (or not). Bela C.
----- Original Message ----- From: "William Conger" To: [email protected] Subject: Re: The good sort of sentimentality Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 11:12:15 -0800 (PST) I think it was Benjamin who raised the idea that looking at photos always involves a degree of melancholy because the photo necessarily images a past, irrecoverable, moment. Even if the photo records a joyful moment, it is a dead moment, and thus a reminder of one's mortality. This would seem to support the notion that sentimentality is essentially a melancholy emotion, a paradoxical emotion that includes both desire for the past and the realization that it cannot be attained. The essence of that sentimentality would be self-pity as a result of not being able to fulfil a desire. However, in make-believe we can pretend to be outside of the moment of reality, to pretend to be in the past, to creatively suspend the arrow of time. In such cases we are in a transitional sort of time, one that is paradoxically present and absent. Perhaps we experience this transitional time when we are lost in a novel yet fully aware that it's dinnertime or when a child plays with a toy truck yet knows the floor is not a real road, etc. Maybe that's sentiment, a kind of empathy, and not sentimentality. I'm not sure. Michael's OED will help. WC wc --- On Tue, 1/20/09, Bela Cos wrote: > From: Bela Cos > Subject: Re: The good sort of sentimentality > To: [email protected] > Date: Tuesday, January 20, 2009, 12:05 PM > 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"...
