|
Literature Also Art?!
| |
| Asya | Date: Friday, 03.02.2012, 12:51 | Message # 1 |
 Union committee president
Group: Moders
Messages: 298
Status: Offline
| When people hear the word "Art", their first thoughts are usually devoted to famous artists or architects. But why are we so focused on visual arts? Art has a lot of manifestations. Ballet is Art. Music is Art. Literature is Art. So, Art is much more than just paintings and sculptures.
I've once (and even not once) heard such an opinion that Literature is not Art at all. The person said, "If you're being asked whether you like Art or not and you answer that you enjoy reading, such an answer will perplex your interlocutor and will never satisfy him/her". Well, that's true. But I think that's mainly because Art is mainly visual arts for us. Does anybody know why it is so? What do you personally refer to Art? What are your first associations when you hear the word "Art"?
|
| |
| |
| Teacher | Date: Saturday, 04.02.2012, 10:32 | Message # 2 |
 Head teacher
Group: Admins
Messages: 375
Status: Offline
| Asya, to tell the truth, I've never associated literature with art. But still it is one of the best forms of art, I think.Quote (Asya) Does anybody know why it is so?
As far as I understand the key point here is that human beings think mainly in images. That's why paintings and sculptures (neing in fact 3d pictures) better correspond to the way of thinking we get used to. As for my first associations with the word "art", it's "painting". And the reason for this is already mentioned.
In Vino Veritas...
|
| |
| |
| MissJane | Date: Saturday, 04.02.2012, 15:40 | Message # 3 |
 Union organizer
Group: Friends
Messages: 193
Status: Offline
| I’ve watched a great video on YouTube explaining the real meaning of the term “art”. If you are brave enough to listen to boring slow repetitive lecturing of an old professor, then welcome here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwpLAd6uhsE
So the idea is that art is KNOWLEDGE that comprises an ideal beneficial for humankind. In this perspective any thing can be regarded as kind of art, literature not being an exception. Yes, Seagull, you are right, we think by means of images but doesn’t literature produce images?! Even brighter and livelier than any painting! Words and special structuring of language build a perfect visual picture that is at the same time more elaborated; it is intertextual in fact, as it provides links to other images supported by wording.
|
| |
| |
| Teacher | Date: Saturday, 04.02.2012, 18:27 | Message # 4 |
|
Head teacher
Group: Admins
Messages: 375
Status: Offline
| MissJane, I've seen this video while searching youtube and google-video. I completely agree that literature also helps to create interesting, great and unreal images. I think that here we face the phenomenon of the speed of thought. We need more time to create in our mind an image that's described in some book, and only then we have a possibility to enjoy it or whatever. I know, that speaking about thinking we shouldn't forget about the so-to-say ultramundane speeds of mental processes, but still.
In Vino Veritas...
|
| |
| |
| MissJane | Date: Saturday, 04.02.2012, 23:49 | Message # 5 |
|
Union organizer
Group: Friends
Messages: 193
Status: Offline
| Quote (Seagull) We need more time to create in our mind an image
If you, for instance, read or hear the word "sun", does it take you more time to visualize the picture of the Sun or of a sunny day than to grasp the same stuff in a painting and then project it in your mind? I wouldn't say so.
My idea was that that quality of the projected image is different. When you read "It was a sunny day", the variety of possible visual realizations of the utterance is not limited. But when you see a picture, let us take the following one
you do see a sunny day (who says it’s rainy?), but is the painting really about the sunny day? Your interpretation goes further and in this case the speed of thought is much dependant on you. If you read “The sun withered her skin”, the sense is straight and plain. But I’m sure it’ll take you more than a second to understand it from the picture. So it’s all about the complexity of an image.
|
| |
| |
| Teacher | Date: Sunday, 05.02.2012, 01:05 | Message # 6 |
|
Head teacher
Group: Admins
Messages: 375
Status: Offline
| MissJane, I think this all depends on a particular picture or an image. And if speak about thoughts and ideas an author wants to share with us, I think here literature is more appropriate than painting.
In Vino Veritas...
|
| |
| |
| Luck | Date: Sunday, 05.02.2012, 14:54 | Message # 7 |
|
Union organizer
Group: Friends
Messages: 172
Status: Offline
| I would like to say that a quality of art depends on the quality of the artist. To be an artist one should be very educated - it does not mean education like having a diploma or certificate but one should be educated mentally. An artist is a person with broad horizons and he wants to transmit the knowledge he has to people's minds. And writing is one of the best ways to do that! I believe that some books can be regarded as a real art. But anyway, here I see a very sharp edge of "I like it, I accept it" or "This is not mine, I can't read it, this is nonsense, I dislike it".
|
| |
| |
| Nadya | Date: Sunday, 05.02.2012, 18:00 | Message # 8 |
 Union committee president
Group: Moders
Messages: 213
Status: Offline
| Luck, I totally agree with you. For me, the word "art" is associated with unique works of outstanding people in various areas of art- literature, architecture, music, sculpture, painting and so on. I think a real art is what attracts people and what people try to maintain and pass on to the following generation.
In my view, nowadays not all modern literature can be called a real art because a lot of people (especially popular or rich people) write a "bestseller" as they've got nothing to do but nobody reads such books unlike the serious and amazing works by the writers of previous ages. People still read these books since important and topical issues are touched upon in them. So, what I mean is that there are no limits in conception of art but still art is supposed to be something special and useful for the whole society.
|
| |
| |
| Teacher | Date: Monday, 06.02.2012, 22:42 | Message # 9 |
|
Head teacher
Group: Admins
Messages: 375
Status: Offline
| Nadya, art is a reflection of people's thoughts and emotions. At the same time it is a reflection of the spirit of times. Thos means that every age of human being's existance has its own conception of art. Maybe a lot of new "bestsellers" you've mentioned can't be called real art or even bear a name of "foney", but they are accepted by the society (remember Dontsova). And here we also face the problem of quality of art. Can we say that negligence that seem to feel all modern arts is a tribute of fashion? Do we really live in the age of nihilism in art? Or its just a lack of quality and unwillingness of artists to spend the whole life to achieve excellence in their work?
In Vino Veritas...
|
| |
| |
| Rina | Date: Tuesday, 07.02.2012, 01:18 | Message # 10 |
 Union committee president
Group: Friends
Messages: 208
Status: Offline
| Quote (Seagull) Can we say that negligence that seem to feel all modern arts is a tribute of fashion? Do we really live in the age of nihilism in art?
The problem is that nowadays the border between "mass culture" and "art" is becoming more and more blurred. Art is in fashion. And that gives birth to a number of pseudo-artists, pseudo-writers and other pseudo-talented-people. The only way to become noticed for them is to become different, provocative, shocking, no matter what they create. if they manage to draw one's attention, they are considered artists. If not, they consider you as an ignorant fool who can't understand "art".
|
| |
| |
| Asya | Date: Friday, 10.02.2012, 11:48 | Message # 11 |
|
Union committee president
Group: Moders
Messages: 298
Status: Offline
| Quote (Rina) The problem is that nowadays the border between "mass culture" and "art" is becoming more and more blurred
I think that's the point. Art becoming trendy does cause a plethora of side-effects.
On the other hand, I wouldn't say that there is no Art nowadays.
Quote (Nadya) but nobody reads such books unlike the serious and amazing works by the writers of previous ages
I am convinced that there are many outstanding authors who live in the 21st century. But sometimes it's really difficult to find the treasure you're searching for in the tonnes of trash.
|
| |
| |
| MissJane | Date: Monday, 13.02.2012, 18:39 | Message # 12 |
|
Union organizer
Group: Friends
Messages: 193
Status: Offline
| Quote (Asya) I am convinced that there are many outstanding authors who live in the 21st century.
I'm of the same opinion, though I can't understand why some authors of the past are still regarded as the most "outstanding observers of the human nature" (the phrase that sets students' teeth on edge), while modern ones (let me, for example, give preference to Asleep by Yoshimoto Banana) are sorted out as second-rate. Could you please tell me why the later is worse than, for instance, Oranges by Saroyan?? Can't see the difference actually.
|
| |
| |
| Nastay62rus | Date: Tuesday, 08.01.2013, 01:52 | Message # 13 |
|
Union organizer
Group: Users
Messages: 102
Status: Offline
| Books can fit almost every need, temper, or interest. Books can be read when you are in the mood; they don't have to be taken in periodic doses. Books are more personal and more impersonal than professors.
|
| |
| |
| Perilova | Date: Saturday, 09.03.2013, 17:53 | Message # 14 |
|
Head teacher
Group: Reliable
Messages: 320
Status: Offline
| It is true, a few people think that literature is art. But it is art, for sure. People used to think that art is just that they can see with their eyes.
Message edited by Perilova - Saturday, 09.03.2013, 17:55 |
| |
| |
| FoxyT | Date: Tuesday, 12.03.2013, 15:17 | Message # 15 |
 Union committee president
Group: Moders
Messages: 256
Status: Offline
| Quote (Perilova) People used to think that art is just that they can see with their eyes.
But do they not see books with their own eyes?))
|
| |
| |
|
