Dangers of Mannerism

The Dangers of Mannerism

We have all listened in on conversations between others, no one wants to admit to it because it’s rude but we do it nonetheless. But have you ever dissected someone’s conversation? Have you ever broken down what one person was trying to do to the other, or why specific words were chosen over others, especially when the conversation involves deep emotion? Emotions or thought process brought up by death or maybe a parent explaining a tricky subject to a minor can elicit very interesting changes in speech patterns if you pay attention. Why do we skew the truth by saying things like he “passed away” as opposed to he died, it doesn’t change the fact that someone is dead. As for myself, I think the answer is very simple, people don’t really want the truth, because the truth is pure and bare, with no margin for doubt or uncertainty, which means in some instances there is no chance for hope. That is why we use euphemisms, for hope. As a species we need to feel there is something more, that we “pass” to another plane of existence, that all is not lost in translation because otherwise people would look at death with despair rather than acceptance. But so why then are euphemisms dangerous, why should we care that we constantly cloud the truth with a mask of hope?
Euphemisms aren’t dangerous when used to shield the weak, as I’ve described above. It’s when euphemisms stick for all purposes of the word that they do damage, because at heart they are “a form of thought control, created to conceal meaning with the purpose of hiding a truth” which also “distort reality, becoming justifications for suppression, mistreatment and isolation from the mainstream.” So basically, Ronnie Bennett from Timegoesby.net and I are of the same opinion that euphemisms are language deformers. Euphemisms have the tendency to become taken too literally. They become the word they were sheltering, thereby skewing the real meaning of a situation. But the dangers of euphemisms aren’t limited to the spoken or written word; art is also subject to this deformation.
Mannerists were of the opinion that art should be about beauty and the ideal. The artists of the mannerist ideal chose to ignore the blemishes of their models, to paint in the dead spots of fruit and to bathe everything in a forgiving light. Others, however, felt that ignoring such details was nothing but ignorance of the truth of life. Caravaggio (1573-1610) was one such artist. When painting images of the divine or of divinity in general he would highlight and embellish all the natural features of the model, his images of divinity were held on human standards and through human forms, not the conception of perfection. His work was thought to be based on pure shock value, but Caravaggio had no interest in shocking anyone, he just wanted to show the truth in life, and the truth he saw wasn’t always beautiful.
So I leave you with a question, is it better to be informed and disheartened or sheltered and hopeful?


Works Cited

Gombrich. "The Story of Art". New York, New York. Phaidon press inc. 2007. pp 390-394

Bennett, Ronnie. "The Danger of Euphemism". Time Goes By. 7 October 2005. 20 October 2007
http://www.timegoesby.net/weblog/2005/10/the_danger_of_e.html