The truth about literature

[fastbilly1]

This is why I read dime novels - give me a good adventure first, fill it with your rhetoric second.

[lordofduct]

Good art will connect with you personally

That's the problem. Literature doesn't connect with me at all. I just see it as a bunch of crap some guy made up. Why should I care? Frankly, I have trouble recognizing it as art at all. I don't see any beauty in it, just mental masturbation.

On the other hand, a good essay or treatise can clearly communicate sophisticated ideas. Orwell's essays, Bertrand Russel, Thoreau, Thomas Paine, William Godwin, Hannah Arendt, Douglas Hofstadter, Daniel Dennet, George Carlin. These are people whose works connect with me. This is art to me, there is great beauty in a well constructed argument.

Now go read Slaughterhouse 5.

I did. It wasn't even for school, but on a friend's recommendation. I felt the same way. Just a bunch of stuff that never happened. I'm much more interested in hearing about what Stephen Hawking has to say about time travel.

No one says you have to enjoy it.

Just like with painting, different styles of painting just aren't for me. I get no affect from it.

Different styles of writings are the same. These "essays" and "treatise" you speak of are still literature.

literaturs: noun - writings in which expression and form, in connection with ideas of permanent and universal interest, are characteristic or essential features, as poetry, novels, history, biography, and essays.


see, essay is right there at the end of the definition.

Your dislike of fictional novels is on par with my dislike of action films. Doesn't make them any less of an art... it just makes them boring as piss for us.



With that said, art is the way we emulate the world... it's the word means, to emulate life. The meaning and direction these arts can act upon the world is immense. It drives people to think and overcome. Why do you think the renaissance was full of art. The renaissance wasn't just about art... far from... the renaissance was about our redirection as 'thinking men'... and art came out of that and drove people. It evoked so much meaning in people that it made them want to do something new.

That's powerful... imaginitive art is just as powerful as any doctrine, essay, or other 'fact based' form of art. Both state "what is" and "what could be" in their own ways... both very effectively. What's great about the imaginitive art though is that for a lot of people (unlike you), they find dry eassays and the sort to be boring as piss. And they want a little adventure along with their revolution.

And lastly another good point to make about imaginitive art. It's a place artists can hide movements. They can spread word through art so that the 'enemy' doesn't recognize it. Back at Shakespeare, and why he is so remembered. He evoked thought in the common man... the rich and the lords just thought they were you know... having a goof. But it got people thinking, it got people asking, it laid intellectual groundwork for the freedoms of the simple man. Not saying it was THE turning point... things don't just change over night. It was a huge step for the lower classes. And shit the lower classes didn't even see it themselves... that's how powerful that imaginitive work was, not even the people it was evoking thought in, realized it was even happening.

A recent film I watched portrayed this about the civil rights movement. "Revolutionary Road" which took place in the decade prior to the civil rights movement, and portrayed two characters completely consumed by this new thought movement, and couldn't figure out what exactly it was going on. All they knew was that it was ripping them apart, and SOMETHING had to be done.

That's moving to me.

[General Chaos]

You know, this whole "what is art" question is one that I have occasionally tried to bring up with my wife (who is an actual trained artist) and despite her utter frustration with this tired question, has provided some guidance.

Based on her responses and those of the many artists I know or have known, I have begun to think more and more than art is not in the eyes of the beholder, but rather in the intent of the creator. If one creates something, anything, and intends it to be art while creating it, then it is art.

Applied to literature, or to be more broad, works of writing, this means that every awful piece of fan fiction out there is art. It's up to the rest of us to decide whether or not there is a collective appreciate for this art. In my opinion this is what distinguishes "good art" from "bad art."

[lordofduct]

You know, this whole "what is art" question is one that I have occasionally tried to bring up with my wife (who is an actual trained artist) and despite her utter frustration with this tired question, has provided some guidance.

Based on her responses and those of the many artists I know or have known, I have begun to think more and more than art is not in the eyes of the beholder, but rather in the intent of the creator. If one creates something, anything, and intends it to be art while creating it, then it is art.

Applied to literature, or to be more broad, works of writing, this means that every awful piece of fan fiction out there is art. It's up to the rest of us to decide whether or not there is a collective appreciate for this art. In my opinion this is what distinguishes "good art" from "bad art."

I always thought that was a given... quality is the masses decission.

Anyways yeah, your wife has it right on the head (as she should). It's all in the intent. That's what brings people to those mediums, the intent. Why would you look at a painting if not to see what the painter intended to show.

But I want to stress an idea onto that. The specific intent isn't all that important. What if the intent was just to entertain, doesn't mean it's any less of an art. It's isn't 'bad art' until the mass concensus is that it sucks ball sacks. In saying that... sadly I have to concede Michael Bay makes art, because it appears large groups of people love it, and he has intent with his films... kinda shitty to think about for me... but hey whatever. I also hate Dotta, so meh.

[General Chaos]

I always thought that was a given... quality is the masses decission.

To challenge my own assertion, I will have you consider the reaction of a room full of (potentially stuffy) art patrons and critics at the mention of the likes of Thomas Kinkade. He is widely popular with the masses, and widely a joke with self described real artists and the in-art community. I wonder if he considers his work art when he creates it? His blatant outsourcing of nearly each and every part of its production would suggest to me that he does not, but who am I to judge.

Duct, in response to your last point: I'm not challenging you here, but does entertaining equate to artful? Are professional athletes artists because they entertain? What about exotic dancers? Not only do they entertain, but they evoke sexuality among other things (plenty of artists try this). If the answer is yes (and it very well may be) I'm going to propose that perhaps there is art in everything, and the fun part is finding it, thus making this whole literature thing even better.

[Erik_Twice]

I don't feel they should be interpreted. When I go to an art museum, I don't think "what did the artist mean". I think "boy, that's pretty. Think of the skill it took to do that". Same with music. I don't listen to a fugue and try to figure out what Bach was trying to say. Instead I think "damn that rocks!"

First of all, you are naïve if you do not think music cannot convey a message or a story or that it doesn't. Secondly, how is literature diferent? I just read it, and think "ah, I liked that story". And thirdly, what you think isn't relevant. You may not think that literature holds any value but that doesn't mean it doesn't. If you don't like it, go complain somewhere else instead of trolling. Can't you be more respectufl?

If you don't like literature, fine, go ahead and enjoy whatever you like but don't come here to complain about things you don't even understand.

I mean, why do you even play games? Because it's fun, isn't it? It's so hard for you to understand people like reading? Man, I don't even know why I'm wasting my time with you.

Now, on the topic at hand. Sometimes something that was really, really good seems mediocre today. Being frank, most old RPGs are really bad compared to what we have today, they have less plot and less interesting battle systems. Classic cartoons are boring and predictable even if you like animation. And Seinfield in unfunny as TVtropes will tell you.

Let's talk about Don Quixote. Why is Don Quixote a good book? Well, mainly because it's a very smart deconstruction of the knight genre. However the knight genre is so fucking dead now that a modern audicience lacks the most important information to find the story fun. Also, and no offense to anyone intended, people is not used to reading and read slowly. I read fast enough so as to see a "movie" in my mind even if the book is quite heavy but most don't and when shown a book were a gag takes three pages they just dump it because it becomes unbearable.

This is no different than retro games. At all.

Also consider that you may need some kind of knoweldge and be genre-savy enough so as to understand why a book is good. To the masses Halo is the best FPS known to man and Hello Kitty games are as good as any other.

[lordofduct]

You know that there is where the 'intent' part gets me. And at times I don't think that part is true, and I believe it's in the masses to make the decission. It's a wavering thought in and out... which makes the whole idea of 'what is art' a very difficult one.

Some people don't consider their own stuff art, or groups don't see the art of works done by large teams. I think it was Miyamoto I was reading an interview with a long while back (and I believe was posted here on Racketboy) and he described what he did as NOT being art do to the fact he didn't intend it as art, and due to the structure of the entire process in making games. He then in a very artistic way made an analogy of the process to a living organism... which brought it back to one of the most common literal definitions of art (emulating life).

The same goes for my buddy Adny who for the longest time demands that his works are NOT art. Despite his years of art school, and his activity in the art communities. It's kind of funny, the rebel against a system of rebels.

[lordofduct]

I don't feel they should be interpreted. When I go to an art museum, I don't think "what did the artist mean". I think "boy, that's pretty. Think of the skill it took to do that". Same with music. I don't listen to a fugue and try to figure out what Bach was trying to say. Instead I think "damn that rocks!"

First of all, you are naïve if you do not think music cannot convey a message or a story or that it doesn't. Secondly, how is literature diferent? I just read it, and think "ah, I liked that story". And thirdly, what you think isn't relevant. You may not think that literature holds any value but that doesn't mean it doesn't. If you don't like it, go complain somewhere else instead of trolling. Can't you be more respectufl?

If you don't like literature, fine, go ahead and enjoy whatever you like but don't come here to complain about things you don't even understand.

I mean, why do you even play games? Because it's fun, isn't it? It's so hard for you to understand people like reading? Man, I don't even know why I'm wasting my time with you.

Now, on the topic at hand. Sometimes something that was really, really good seems mediocre today. Being frank, most old RPGs are really bad compared to what we have today, they have less plot and less interesting battle systems. Classic cartoons are boring and predictable even if you like animation. And Seinfield in unfunny as TVtropes will tell you.

Let's talk about Don Quixote. Why is Don Quixote a good book? Well, mainly because it's a very smart deconstruction of the knight genre. However the knight genre is so fucking dead now that a modern audicience lacks the most important information to find the story fun. Also, and no offense to anyone intended, people is not used to reading and read slowly. I read fast enough so as to see a "movie" in my mind even if the book is quite heavy but most don't and when shown a book were a gag takes three pages they just dump it because it becomes unbearable.

This is no different than retro games. At all.

You preach it!

My girlfriend love Don Quixote for its message. And the message so blatant, a story of a knight written in a time when knight stories are no longer told, about a knight who lives in a time when knights are no longer appreciated, and he's pissed... he's down right crazy about the idea of getting his battle as a knight... his notoriety.

It's classic... being the one person to late for the party. A man out of his own time. And that message can easily apply today... just consider the older folks up against the technological revolution. They've got their own windmills every time they walk out the door on their way to work.

Or even us here appreciating classic literature. Swinging wildly at the monsters over the sea. Driven crazy by the fact this new generation has stripped themselves of this once classic art form. And ignorantly ignoring the fact that they READ every day on the internet different stories and news and everything.

[General Chaos]

The same goes for my buddy Adny who for the longest time demands that his works are NOT art. Despite his years of art school, and his activity in the art communities. It's kind of funny, the rebel against a system of rebels.

I have a friend just like that--trained in art school, socializes with artists, dates an artist--claims he isn't an artist. In fact, he claims he "whores himself out to corporate America." I think there's almost a belief in the art community that you're not a real artist unless you're poor. That is until you get recognized enough, then you have to walk the fine line between producing work and "selling out."

[Xonticus]

I'd like to retort with a saying I heard somewhere, probably most recently in V for Vendetta: A politician uses lies to deceive people, while a writer uses them to convey the truth.

Quoting the film version of "V for Vendetta", and, specifically, quoting this out of the film version of "V for Vendetta" doesn't do a whole lot in terms of getting people to take you seriously.

*Sigh*

Just because I paraphrased something out of a good movie based on a great graphic novel doesn't mean I cannot state an opinion? I've heard that saying somewhere else before, and was reminded of it from when I watched the movie 6 days ago, yet was too lazy to go searching for the original quote. That's why I said "probably most recently in V for Vendetta" because it was the most recent for me being reminded of that saying. You probably didn't understand what I was trying to say in the first place.

Please either stop trolling or stop taking yourself so seriously. Goddamn.