Dictionary.com defines "eclectic" as follows:
–adjectiveDo I consider myself eclectic, yes to an extent. I mean my tastes in most subjects fall firmly into points one and two above. I will happily mix old and new alongside each other, I would happily hang Picasso alongside Fra Angelico alongside Delacroix. I even mix different types of woods in a single room. My taste in movies is all over the place and my music tastes range from rap to classical and everything in between. Not all encompassing but small examples, if I like something then I like it, if I don't then I don't. It really doesn't matter what classification it's given.
1. selecting or choosing from various sources.
2. made up of what is selected from different sources.
3. not following any one system, as of philosophy, medicine, etc., but selecting and using what are considered the best elements of all systems.
4. noting or pertaining to works of architecture, decoration, landscaping, etc., produced by a certain person or during a certain period, that derive from a wide range of historic styles, the style in each instance often being chosen for its fancied appropriateness to local tradition, local geography, the purpose to be served, or the cultural background of the client.
But he got me thinking. If he (or anyone really) were to walk into my library at home, would he really consider my reading tastes eclectic? Is it only "eclectic" if the viewer knows nothing about a subject? Even growing up, my bookshelves have always held the same loosely related subject matters - history, art, architecture, and travel. In my mind they are all incestuously interrelated but if someone doesn't know how the subject matter fits into a worldly view does that make my choice of reading material eclectic? Granted, he only see's snippets of my collection when he delivers a book to me, would he likely change his mind if he saw the collection as a whole?
No comments:
Post a Comment