What everything is about or... literature as it is not.

[TGS]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Never said otherwise, some thrive on a diet of fruit and NUTS as well.

Indeed, but one has to be careful that, whatever ones diet, one doesn't become full of BILE.

[kennyc]

Exactly or you'll need a colon cleanser.

[TGS]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Exactly or you'll need a colon cleanser.

Or even a semi-colon cleanser;

[kennyc]

And some literature works the same way on the mind.

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by EWGB

If Shakespeare were alive today, he may have changed the central theme of Hamlet from "To be or not to be," to "To be or to have."

Shakespeare wrote popular - and extremely successful - plays for the audience of the time. He was not writing Great Art regardless of what would sell, but creating plays that the public wanted to see.

I'm not sure that I get your point either - could you stoop to making it plainly? If your point is that there is no room for true art because everything is commercialised, I think that the opposite is true - i.e. that there is more opportunity now than there ever has been for artists to create and share their work.

[TGS]

Originally Posted by kennyc

And some literature works the same way on the mind.

That's far too sophisticated for me, you'll have to explain it I'm afraid.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

As so often happens, commercialization is automatically painted as "crass," "dirty," "beneath us." I disagree: Thanks to commercialization, we live in a society where literature can be disseminated throughout the world in mere seconds.

Also, there are nearly 7 billion people on this planet. Therefore there's no point to trying to qualify literature or art, as those things are different for every person on the planet.

Shakespeare was working to earn a living. He wasn't trying to elevate Human Consciousness... he was trying to entertain a paying audience. There's no shame in that, nor is there for me, if I so choose to earn the same living. Whether my work is as good as his is immaterial... some would like his work best, and some would like mine.

So... what? Writing is writing. Literature is literature. Books is books. Clams have legs. The peasants are revolting. Soylent Green is people. The quality of mercy is not strained peas. I'm strong to the finish, 'cause I eats my spinach. Burma! Oh, and the sundae for dessert, please.

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

Also, there are nearly 7 billion people on this planet. Therefore there's no point to trying to qualify literature or art, as those things are different for every person on the planet.

There are lots of people therefore we shouldn't try to quantify literature or art? Doesn't seem to follow to me. I think that we can sensibly ask "what is art?" - for example as Ramachandran does here.

[TGS]

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

I think that we can sensibly ask "what is art?" - for example as Ramachandran does here.

Ramachandran is interesting, but he's probably mostly wrong, (about art - his neuroscience is impeccable!) . Rudolf Arnheim has interesting things to say. And specifically about literature Roman Ingarden is worth reading.

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by TGS

Ramachandran is interesting, but he's probably mostly wrong, (about art - his neuroscience is impeccable!) . Rudolf Arnheim has interesting things to say. And specifically about literature Roman Ingarden is worth reading.

Where I think Ramachandran is right is when he says that we should be investigating questions of this sort (i.e. what is art?) scientifically (or, more broadly, rationally) - as opposed to claiming that they are mysterious, or subjective, or whatever and giving up on them. Whether his particular conclusions are correct, I don't feel qualified to say - I'll look at your links in the hope of educating myself

[they're not available as ebooks - boo hiss! I shall remain ignorant ]

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Define art scientifically? Only to the extent that it defines an initial electro-chemical process that it triggers in the brain, much like any other sensory input. But again, as every person is different, the results of that trigger--the resultant electro-chemical processes in the brain--will not be the same in any two people. So any definition can only be given in the very abstract, the potential but not the specific: A process that initiates other processes.

(Sorry, I don't have an hour and a half to listen to the clip right now. Maybe in a few days.)

[Ben Thornton]

Our experience of everything is different from person to person - vision, for example. That doesn't mean that you can't study them scientifically - because we are more similar than we are different. That's not to say that science is the only valid way of talking about such things - even if we did understand the way we respond to food, for example, it wouldn't be the most appropriate way of talking about what we enjoy eating. My point was really that there's no magic woo involved in art, and understanding how it works seems to me a valuable exercise.

[DiapDealer]

My point was really that there's no magic woo involved in art

I would argue that art—art that I find truly exceptional—is comprised entirely of magic woo.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I would argue that art—art that I find truly exceptional—is comprised entirely of magic woo.

You mean like your avatar?

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by kennyc

You mean like your avatar?

Hey, it's not a bad drawing.... for an author.