Jeez, what a mess! You're absolutely correct about the abstractness surrounding the word "art" as well as "love" and "beauty". The root of the matter is that I believe that there is an act which consists of taking the non-physical, temporary things in one's mind and turning them into physical, more permanent, tangible things and that act is an easily-definable, distinct act of communication deserving of its own unique word, simply because the occurence of it is so integral in human nature. I was under the impression that this expression was the entire essence of art, and I do believe that if you do something that meets those criteria that it IS art. I believe that what I just described and random things which similarly evoke emotions are very different things deserving of their own unique descriptions. Apparently the word "art" is too abstract for definition, but the aesthetically pleasing and the artistic intent which I have described are more than deserving of distinct differentiation.
Time to invent a new word, Mr. Duct?
In the cases I am talking about, there is only minimal structure that is simply a "canvas" for solo improvisation. Where is the general composition there? Where is the art in the general composition?
Well, the conversation lordofduct and I had makes this very difficult to phrase, but the very "canvas" you're talking about is the concrete piece, and the improvisation, no matter how much there is within, HAS been planned to occur atop that concrete piece. The "canvas" is the discernable song with the concept of "random" improvisation already determined to exist on top of that "canvas". It would have been alot easier to explain back when I felt that I had a concrete word for the concept I was describing.
Original_Name wrote:
Time to invent a new word, Mr. Duct?
Most certainly not... because art does define what it is. It defines the abstract.
Do we need a word to replace matter? Matter defines just about every physical thing in the universe. If it has mass, it's matter.
Just because art is broad and encompasses a huge collection of things, both tangible and non-tangible, does not mean we need a word. We just have other words to describe specific kinds of art. Which we have.
I'll point back to my last post as I think you may have missed it:
We as a species we love to categorize. We put things down into orders, and then label that order. But from this categorization anomalies are bound to appear. It's a given, it's not even human error that these anomalies appear. Hydro-carbons bound together in random chains creating proteins and over time the awkward anomaly we call life comes screaming out of the mixture.
Is any one object of a completely abstract concept going to follow the rules of its order specifically? How could it... there are bound to be examples which will fail to fit the model 100%. And when the model is something that isn't concrete, does not require a set of strict rules that can't be bent like say physics or chemistry... these anomalies are there to enrich the experience. Our concept of physics evolves to match the reality of physics as physics is not our construct... our model of art evolves to fit our choice of what it is. Two completely different directions in thought. It's really a separating line between the arts and the sciences.
Anyone who is trying to put a strict label on it that is ever static is merely missing the entire point of it. It's not there to describe something in the world for us to understand. It's something we've invented, we are changing, we have control over it... art is ours, and if we as a people want it to mean something, we let it mean that.
The fact you think we need to pull all this abstract stuff out of our head an make it tangible is ill fitting. There is abstract, there just is, let it be what it is. Because none of what we described here today was ever meant to be concrete... would you want a definition telling you what you could love and not love by definition despite the feelings the thing you love evokes in you?
That's just a product of embarassment. We don't want to call some certain thing art, because we're afraid others won't agree. Hey guys, I love Justin Timberlake, I think he's an artist. I love his music and really anyone who thinks likewise can go fuck themself, dont' list to it then.
Just like Limewater thinking V for Vendetta is a joke. So what... Limewater doesn't like it. Why should we be defining a word on our opinions of some single discrete form of that word.
Original_Name wrote:
Time to invent a new word, Mr. Duct?
Most certainly not... because art does define what it is. It defines the abstract.
Do we need a word to replace matter? Matter defines just about every physical thing in the universe. If it has mass, it's matter.
Just because art is broad and encompasses a huge collection of things, both tangible and non-tangible, does not mean we need a word. We just have other words to describe specific kinds of art. Which we have.
I'll point back to my last post as I think you may have missed it:
We as a species we love to categorize. We put things down into orders, and then label that order. But from this categorization anomalies are bound to appear. It's a given, it's not even human error that these anomalies appear. Hydro-carbons bound together in random chains creating proteins and over time the awkward anomaly we call life comes screaming out of the mixture.
Is any one object of a completely abstract concept going to follow the rules of its order specifically? How could it... there are bound to be examples which will fail to fit the model 100%. And when the model is something that isn't concrete, does not require a set of strict rules that can't be bent like say physics or chemistry... these anomalies are there to enrich the experience. Our concept of physics evolves to match the reality of physics as physics is not our construct... our model of art evolves to fit our choice of what it is. Two completely different directions in thought. It's really a separating line between the arts and the sciences.
Anyone who is trying to put a strict label on it that is ever static is merely missing the entire point of it. It's not there to describe something in the world for us to understand. It's something we've invented, we are changing, we have control over it... art is ours, and if we as a people want it to mean something, we let it mean that.
The fact you think we need to pull all this abstract stuff out of our head an make it tangible is ill fitting. There is abstract, there just is, let it be what it is. Because none of what we described here today was ever meant to be concrete... would you want a definition telling you what you could love and not love by definition despite the feelings the thing you love evokes in you?
That's just a product of embarassment. We don't want to call some certain thing art, because we're afraid others won't agree. Hey guys, I love Justin Timberlake, I think he's an artist. I love his music and really anyone who thinks likewise can go fuck themself, dont' list to it then.
Just like Limewater thinking V for Vendetta is a joke. So what... Limewater doesn't like it. Why should we be defining a word on our opinions of some single discrete form of that word.
Whoa, whoa. You misunderstand my point. I'm not saying that a piece of art which is not deliberate cannot evoke the same, if not stronger emotions out of a person that a piece which is not; I just believe that they are distinct enough from one another that they deserve distinct differentiation. It's like how we have a word for romantic love and for platonic love. Both are love, certainly, but they are very different kinds of love and thus deserving of distinctive words. Art that is deliberately made to be so as a means to preserve one's mind is very different from a thing that came to be without intent, and is interpreted to be beautiful or moving by those who come across it.
The thing that troubles me though, is that it feels like if we're going to have words for these concepts at all, they ought to be distinct from one another. I'm having a hard time differentiating by these vague definitions what differentiates art from anything else that can be interpreted as beautiful.
art can be beautiful, and beautiful things may just be art. But they aren't the same just as human can be animal and an animal just may be a human... or not.
art is a noun for something constructed by man to mean something. May that something be solid like a painting or sculpture, or an action like a dance or song.
beauty is an adjective we attribute to things that are soothing and heartwarming and the sort
As I said before the only common theme between all definitions of art is that they are made by man via skill or practice. Or at least attributed to the skill or practice of some system. Like we wouldn't call the ocean art, but we'd call it beautiful. But if we attributed the creation of the ocean to something, like say God, we could then say God created art when digging the oceans.
ewwww I just pulled a booger out of my hair. I just took a shower, I must of rubbed it up there or something while washing.
art can be beautiful, and beautiful things may just be art. But they aren't the same just as human can be animal and an animal just may be a human... or not.
art is a noun for something constructed by man to mean something. May that something be solid like a painting or sculpture, or an action like a dance or song.
beauty is an adjective we attribute to things that are soothing and heartwarming and the sort
As I said before the only common theme between all definitions of art is that they are made by man via skill or practice. Or at least attributed to the skill or practice of some system. Like we wouldn't call the ocean art, but we'd call it beautiful. But if we attributed the creation of the ocean to something, like say God, we could then say God created art when digging the oceans.
ewwww I just pulled a booger out of my hair. I just took a shower, I must of rubbed it up there or something while washing.
Wait, then were we ever disagreeing in the first place?
General Chaos, you make a good point. We should clarify things, because I'm sure we and whoever's been reading that have been getting lost in the verboseness of lordofduct and I. I'd go ahead and make a proposition, but I REALLY need to get started on some essays.
Hahahahaha, also, I love how this thread is called "The Truth about Literature". I've been giggling at that for awhile.
Well, I read the replies and skimmed through the ones arguing what is art.
I used find arguing to be fun, but then realized there is nothing to prove in arguing.
The truth is, if you argue then it handle two opinions, unless one is ill informed.
For example, no one can argue that the Sun does not exist. We can prove it. If you argue about it
then you are ill-informed, maybe you never knew the sun did exist because you lived your whole life under a rock. But when you can argue, then for sure it can handle more than one opinion and it is useless to force yours. Like what is art? Or who was the best writer ever? Was Hitler good or a bad person?
Unless you can scientifically prove it, you can argue it, therefor I don't argue much any more.
For me, I think art is the skill of humans put into work. So anything you work with a skill can be considered art.
For example, you can eat in any way you want. But when there is a specific way/skill of eating like cutting beef with a sharp knife, not making sound drinking soup, holding fork with your left hand it will be called the art of eating. If it has no skills then it is not art.
If you want to know what is superior art, then I have to say it might be complex skill set. The more complex and unachievable by ordinary people, the more superior the for of art is. Wether you like it or not is subjective.
For example, I HATE screaming rock or heavy metal whatever they call it. Its crap that no one should ever listen to or play. BUT, maybe that guitar player is moving his fingers in a speed of 1/100 of a second to hear that crazy tune. See its complex and needs high skill, but personally its not appealing.
back to main topic,
I got most of my answers from lordofduct. I get it now that these books are famous because all people read them, which kind of supports my point that they are famous because people made them famous. They are the books everyone read, they are not the best books or most important books out there.
Second thing, you call them simple novels for highschool because later in university you get in the complex/advanced novels. Well, Romeo & Juliet, The Odyssey , are these considered simple ones? They gave us those at school.
One thing I hate about English literature is how the author just easily uses broken words/grammar to write his novel. OK, sure you might use something simple like "ya'll" or use local insults(I don't know any) to reflect the background or a character, but to write something like James Joyce? That is hardly English. I picked four random words from the excerpt you(lordofduct) gave, and it had no definition. WTF?!
Last thing I want to say is, if an author writes something and he means something by it , it should be clear. Different interpretation does not mean depth, it means people are lost and the author made a bad job. There are only two ways out of this:
1)The author deliberately made it confusing/unclear to get different interpretations from people
2)The real meaning was lost(due to the death of the author) and people made different assumptions of what he meant.
Otherwise it is IMPOSSIBLE to have more than one interpretation, unless he/she did a bad job.
Because of this, now every English novel probably needs a study guide to come along with it just to understand what is going on.
I think this might only exist in English literature. I am from different background, and when someone wants to symbolize anything almost all of the time the symbolism is crystal clear.
EX1) A peacock went to the lion.
Right there you can tell the peacock represents people who care about their looks and wealth, and the lion is some one who is king or in power.
in English literature it would be something like this
EX2) Tom ran away from home, walking by the river he threw tiny stones in the river and watched them go by.
Explanation in English literature: Tom represents all the teenagers in the world and how they want to set themselves free. The stones are the mistakes he has done in past, and the river are the years passing by taking away all his mistakes.
HOW THE HELL could I figure that out reading this novel on my own?
Well you know what? Maybe the author just wants to describe what was Tom doing for fun while he was bored to create the setting.
What is worse it can have more than one interpretation.
Explanation 1) Tom represents the working class tied to the big corporations(his home), and the tiny rocks are all their hard work gone to waste.
You see those are two different ideas that the author can NOT possibly meant to be.
When I was in university, I had poetry class for the first time by an American teacher. English poetry to me is a load of crap(what she gave us), I am sorry. She gave us stuff that does not make sense, it is very normal to get a piece similar to the follow:
The Sky is blue, Yet I am still hungry
My phone rang, dang dang dang
I am still hungry, and it is making me angry
then a cat came along, and so the cat went along
WTF IS THAT!
I asked what is going on, and she said, well , what do YOU think going on? So I did an essay about what I thought was going on(all kind of crap from my imagination done on purpose). SHE LIKED IT! I got a ton of A's. I can lie and say anything , it was just what I think. Does not matter what the author wanted to say. Does English literature really work that way?
I think its all interesting how the English literature works, I am grateful I was taught all about irony, symbolism , themes, and more. I can interpret things way better now(literature or not) , and its fun looking for such clues. But when the symbolism gets 1000 different interpretation, I think they just do not have any idea what is really going on in a specific peace of literature.
Kingmod, I'm not going to respond to your whole post but I will focus on the points made at the very beginning and end.
First, the point about arguing being pointless: There is a distinct difference between argument and discussion, the latter of which we are having here. What we've done is in a lot of ways similar to the Socratic method. We've broken things down, answered questions with questions, forced respondents to answer their own questions, etc. This can be a form of "debate" or "argument" but it's also a form of reasoning and it works quite well among civilized participants.
As for your last point regarding "making up" stuff on your essay: good for you! Good teachers aren't here to turn you into an encyclopedia of knowledge (we already have those). They're here to teach and force you to think abstractly, challenge your own assumptions and those of others, and analyze theses critically. It sounds like even if you made some stuff up, you thought in the abstract. Hell, ask most professional academics (in the social sciences at least) and they'll tell you something along the lines of "it's all bullshit." That doesn't mean it isn't thought provoking.
