Why is literature the only art medium where cooperating is looked down upon...

Why is literature the only art medium where cooperating is looked down upon? Films are pretty much accepted to be a team effort, musical collaborations are always welcomed, comicbooks/manga are being drawn by several people for speed and efficiency, but books are firmly set in public eye as a solo mission and terms like 'ghost writer' are derogatory. What if I'm an idea guy with no talent for the word, do I not deserve a shot at getting these stories out there?

Because literature is unlike film

>do I not deserve a shot at getting these stories out there?
exactly

>Films are pretty much accepted to be a team effort
Not so fast - the films most praised by "high culture" critics are those with the "strong vision" type of director and absolutely minimal input from anyone else
>musical collaborations are always welcomed
But hardly ever yield quintessential music
>comicbooks/manga are being drawn by several people for speed and efficiency
And those aren't usually recognised as an art form

its only not frowned upon in film because it would be nearly impossible to make a bunch of movies solo - not so with books.

Every art medium (including the ones you ignored, chosing to mention manga and comics, lol) is a collaborative effort, even literature.

You still have editors in literature.

yeah but OP's general point is basically right - the more a piece of art is seen as the vision of a 'genius', the more highly valued it is. generally of course

Tbqh, since you don't seem as dumb as OP, you gotta understand that no art is done by a single artist, and not even in the metaphorical, everything is an influence blah blah blah way, but in the most artist thorough history had their workshops and whatnot, but romanticism turned this whole "The artist is touched by genius" thing into the main current of thought, and only now, I believe, we're finally overcoming this.

what god damn media ever credits an "idea guy"?

>>musical collaborations are always welcomed
>But hardly ever yield quintessential music
I'd like to introduce you to this obscure little pair of collaborators named John Lennon and Paul McCartney

great example, all of the beatles wanted to make different kinds of music and had to have things like "so this is a ringo starr song"

Movie directors are basically idea guys. Their only job is to tell others what to do

>The Beatles

Books can have more than one author.

If you have a suggestion for an artist or band that made music more "quintessential" than the Beatles, I'd love to hear it.

beach boys you faggot

mozzart (underrated)

I know the picture is of Borges, but from what video/movie is this?

This argument has been made countless times, so suffice it to say Beach Boys was just a bunch of faggy harmonies and McCartney could beat up Wilson.

editors

What is quintessential about "ripping off underground acts and give them a radio-friendly suit"? Though, this is indeed, the quintessential mechanism of pop music (though the Beatles didn't invent even that).


You can always try to, if you don't wanna mention erudite composers, go for people like Woody Guthrie, Cartola, Jacques Brel or Blind Lemon Jefferson, people who actually modelled the musical landscape of their respective countries.

It's not looked down upon. It's just the fact that writers don't need anyone else to write for them. If they knew how to do it well and had the time, comic writers would draw their works and directors would hold the camera. I'm talking about serious artists here, a capeshit writer probably only wants to finish his job and get paid so he doesn't care about artistic value too much.
Collaborations on books exist, though. See Shakespeare's later plays, Dumas' works and Gaiman's and Pratchett's "Good Omens", for example. None of these works are criticized for being collabs.

beach boys

>absolutely minimal input from anyone else
>he actually fell for this

petzold

nice thought

are you retarded?

Film is necessarily a collaborative effort. No single man can write, direct, produce, film, and act every part in a film with no input from any other person.

that's like saying a great painter is just an idea guy because anyone can put brush to canvas, or a great writer is only an idea guy because anyone can write.

the artistic skill comes in the specifics. it takes immense skill for a director to get exactly his artistic vision out of the entire crew working on a film, in the same way it takes immense skill for a painter to translate his vision to the canvas, or the writer to move his to the page. Art is not the idea, it's the execution. If you've got the greatest story ever told in your head but you can't translate it to reality, you aren't an artist.

/thread

are we not, as readers, collaborating with the writer?