Do you think Literature is more worthwhile as oppose to other things such as TV, comics, movies, video games etc

>worthwhile
nice spook you've got there

wrong. authoritative hierarchy:

books
sculpture
architecture
comics
film
porn
woodworking
comics
competitive potato farming
sports
gambling
tv
video games
trolling Veeky Forums
painting
eating a sandwich
buzzfeed listicles

That must've been some really bad sandwich.

yes, i was disappointed. especially since it was made by a professional sandwich artist

You retards are so wrong

Music
Books
Figurative arts
Cable TV shows

No lolcomics and, my God please no, fucking videogames. These are literally for monkeys.

Too bad it wasn't made by a sandwich sculptor or author - maybe then it would have been better.

depth
richness
room for your imagination to soar

love that other shit too, tho
but best is best

the best game is better than a shit book, but the best literature is light years better than any movie, TV show, comic, games.

I'm sure every game developer, screenwriter, comic artist, would agree.

yes i hear sandwich playwrights are very much a thing especially in brooklyn these days

it hurts SO MUCH when someone criticizes your painting, doesn't it?

weeeeew

>comics>films>videogames>music

Music
Books
Films
Comics
Video games
TV Shows

Literature
Fine Art
Poetry

Music (classical, "new classical", opera)
New TV (Mr Robot, Humans, Billions Sopranos, ykwim)
Film

Jazz
Dark Side of the Moon, Sgt Peppers'

Music
Video games
Graphic Novels

traditional TV
comics

I think the "quality" has a lot to do with budget. Mediums that require large budgets have to appeal to pretty much everyone, and as such lose most depths and originality. Movies are the clearest example of this.

This is pretty obvious in video games. Every big budget game ends up being pretty unoriginal and stale. However, indie games with their low budgets are able to appeal to niche audiences, and as such have a lot more originality and depth.

Books, comics, indie games, and music are both low budget, so they can easily create great unique art. Movies and TV can still do it, but they're fighting an uphill battle.

>comics

I'd say it's probably like this:
Top tier:
>literature
>poetry
>absolute top of film

High tier:
>film
>music
>visual art
>select few TV shows

Doesn't matter tier:
>comics
>video games
>virtually all TV shows

meh, it's all (((social media))) to me

I think the common opinion of books being more worthwile is less founded on the quality, but rather the effort that literature requires of its consumer.
Reading a novel for example, one would have to create all sounds and pictures with his own imagination, while watching a movie one would be spoon fed and in turn their imagination waste away.

you clearly have never truly experienced or loved music. It is incredibly moving and should definitely be top tier.

If music is top tier then so should be visual art. I don't think they have the same communicative ability as literature and poetry.

So much posturing in one thread.
>Music (classical, "new classical", opera)
None of this means anything in regards to music, you realize this right? Damn poser.
Music isn't low-budget you idiot.

Top Tier - peak of human creative achievement:
>Literature
>Music
>Architecture
>Film

Tier I - literature & film oust theatre; architecture ousts paintings:
>Painting / Drawing / other visual
>Theater

Tier II - have potential, but don't come close to the content of the upper tiers:
>TV Shows
>Comics
>Video Games

Tier III - not as much room for creativity; more about capturing nature than manipulating it:
>Photography / Field Recordings
>Culinary Arts

Bottom Tier - with some exceptions, crafts just aren't relateable or that stimulating; performance arts are just where arts and sport intersect:
>Ceramics / Sculpting / other crafts
>Dance / Gymnastics / Figure Skating / other performance

i don't oppose literature to other media. that's pseud territory

poetry is a form of literature.

the arts aren't limited to communicative abilities. for example, there is more freedom in the medium of music to create than there is in pottery.

>/mu/ spotted

how is architecture more creative than drawing/painting, and how is photography and sculpture not 'other visual'? how new are you to art?

>media judged on how 'moving' it is

hey there undergrad

you're right, painting could probably be in top tier. just personal preference though.

photography has clearly different intents than painting, i.e. capturing vs. manipulating or recreating. you could lump them in together if you wanted. I meant for "other visual" to refer to things such as printmaking or digital drawings.

sculpture seemed like the biggest grey area as it can sometime be limited to comparatively drab recreations compared to other art forms. But then, there's the Pieta, etc. it could get lumped in with other visual too i suppose

i guess it depends on the context.

how long have you been studying art? have you graduated yet?

>tv on par with film
>tv above Jazz
>jazz on par with dadrock

W E W L A D

I think it's mostly worthless

It's worthless but that's what makes it worthwhile.

>comics
>better than anything
Hot opinions lad

>anything
>being worthwhile

look at this pleb

art is art, you sluts. the most expressive are music and painting but that doesn't mean they produce more worthwhile works.

suk diks

Jazz is trash; nonmusic much like rock music.

Writing off whole genres is the mark of the pleb, there is great music in every genre until you get to certain incredibly specific genres (i.e. crabcore). I encourage everyone to dismiss the opinion of anyone who dismisses large swathes of art, people, ideologies, anything really.

>there is great music in every genre
No there isn't, popular music has no value. You mistake it for art, when in truth it is pulp.

Literature is better than all of them. If you want to play video games I suggest killing yourself. If you're too cowardly to do that then I suggest picking up a role playing game where the only limit is your imagination instead of what some developer programmed.

Written language directly communicates ideas and feelings to the reader with nothing in the way. It can beam right into your mind and make you feel things you didn't know were possible to feel. Every other medium has a restriction that lessens its overall effectiveness.

>No there isn't, popular music has no value
This isn't true. There literally is good music in every genre.

Even a lot of shitty pop music, the composers of those songs often know what they're doing. There is often genius there. It's often just the performance and production styles that hide this. Some of those pop songs, if you used the scores, embellished them a bit, orchestrated them and give them a little makeover, changed the tempo, gave them different performers, changed the lyrics would be incredibly moving.

I have to say, Jazz is perhaps the worst genre of music ever conceived, techno perhaps is equally bad. But there are still good jazz songs.

Sculpture is in the top tier. It is easily one of the most expressive artforms and has some of the greatest capacity for emotion impact. Not to mention that it often is in dialogue or obfuscated with architecture, which you've put in the top tier.

>Music isn't low-budget you idiot.
Rock, jazz and hip hop are.

>truth
if you fail to see this then i feel sorry for you

trips of truth

> not just sitting around in an unfocused haze all hours of the day

the drunks were right!

The fact that so many books still name the Beatles as "the greatest or most significant or most influential" rock band ever only tells you how far rock music still is from becoming a serious art. Jazz critics have long recognized that the greatest jazz musicians of all times are Duke Ellington and John Coltrane, who were not the most famous or richest or best sellers of their times, let alone of all times. Classical critics rank the highly controversial Beethoven over classical musicians who were highly popular in courts around Europe. Rock critics are still blinded by commercial success. The Beatles sold more than anyone else (not true, by the way), therefore they must have been the greatest. Jazz critics grow up listening to a lot of jazz music of the past, classical critics grow up listening to a lot of classical music of the past. Rock critics are often totally ignorant of the rock music of the past, they barely know the best sellers. No wonder they will think that the Beatles did anything worthy of being saved.

Music
Books
>gap
Videogames
>gap
TV shows
Comics
Film

Sounds like you are more concerned with image than substance if that first comparison is anything to go by.

I agree with you.

all these plebs who havent read a single comic talkin shit.

delicious pasta

damn i hate when people reply reasonably

some painting does attempt to capture, i.e. portraiture (sometimes), still life, landscape (also sometimes) and some photography does attempt to manipulate, even if you don't include digital manipulation. i don't think it 'replaced painting and caused modernism' as is often heard, but they do share some similar artistic concerns, namely the use of the frame to provide meaning. i think photography and painting are more similar than sculpture and painting, even though both were involved in the paragone debate during the renaissance and shared the academies with architecture from the baroque onwards.

sculpture is still creative and even though there have been periods of stagnation it has stayed a relevant art. now it can refer to anything from some mixed media to land art and installation art. it's basically defined by what it isn't.

Traditional pop is patrician as fuck. Literally no one listens to it anymore because they're all dead so it's left to the intellectual to discover for his or herself.

Summed up wonderfully.

we are in a golden age of Veeky Forums

My grandfather does.

Definitive ranking, in terms of cultural importance, artistic merit, and potential for beauty

My Diary Desu
Classic Literature
Fine Art (Sculpture, classical & neo-classical painting)
Music (Palestrina, Vivaldi, Mozart, Schnittke)
Architecture

>>Small Gap Gap

ITT: Dilettantes pretending they know shit

jesus save us now

if i should guess, i'd say you're 21. right?