Honest Opinions Time, Veeky Forums

Honest Opinions Time, Veeky Forums

At what point is a book "a good book" or even "literature?"

Is it the prose? The story? The philosophical subtext?

If we compare writing as an art form to say, painting, then why is writing and literature always so rigidly criticized?

Comparing Peter Paul Rubens to Gustav Klimt to Berlitz to Rothko...

Isn't simplicity in prose also valid if it's done well?
Technical ability in most art forms is only a part of it and in some cases, not even a requirement at all.

So why is literature so antiquated? Is it because it's the "most intellectual" artform? Is it because it's the only artform actually put down in words? Describing a painting or a song, or why it's good is difficult, but with writing, the words are already there, and easy to compare to other words written down, or gives the illusion of being easier to compare.

How much does Veeky Forums mean what they say in regards to what they consider "worthwhile" and how much is just posturing?

Literature also has different aims than the typical book. Think of the difference between design and art. Both can be pretty and interesting but design stops short of deeper meaning and truth.

i want to fuck that painting

>Both can be pretty and interesting but design stops short of deeper meaning and truth.

But design is, by definition, useful. Design must have a practical application for it to be considered design. Sometimes that's the only difference. And in a lot of circles, designers are considered artists. For example, you have Eileen Gray. A designer at the turn of the century (1900s) who is still considered a huge figure in her field today.

Good designers fulfill the same requirements as artists, with the additional requirement that what they create has to be useable.

So really, if you're comparing a sort of intellectual application and a practical application, then that doesn't really devalue the typical book.

I'll add that I'm talking about a certain standard of the medium, of course.

I know, right?

this

My example wasn't the greatest. To steal from DFW, Quentin Tarantino is interested in watching somebody's ear getting cut off; David Lynch is interested in the ear.

I didn't mean that art and design or in our case literature and other works were different in value but in purpose and aim.

>no tits
>no ass

It's a man, isn't it?

>Design must have a practical application for it to be considered design.
>practical application
Source?

Think fashion design

>but user, all fashion designers create practical applications! .. clothing is practically a necessity

You've got it mixed up. Art doesn't differ from design in being less practical - most art could be appropriated for practical purposed. The difference is that art isn't intended for or allowed to be used the way design is, usually because the artist feels that doing so would compromise the integrity of the art. Designers, in order to do their jobs, must somehow get around the integrity issue. The easiest way to do that is not to allow deeper meaning to seep into one's designs. There are also those who don't buy into the integrity argument or simply have lower standards, and those are the designers who produce artistic work. Then there are the ones who embrace the loss of integrity as part of the message, like Warhol. Actually, just Warhol. No one did it before him and everyone who's done it since has been a hack.

>Quentin Tarantino is interested in watching somebody's ear getting cut off; David Lynch is interested in the ear.

I think Lynch would be interested in the former, and terntino the latter as well. Or is this example just DFW attempt to sound 'counter' cultural and underground artsy hip, when really its just a 'hip-signaling' meaningless banal inaccurate platitude?

If Tarantino did a shot of the ear on the ground, it would be to show how cool and retro-looking his practical effects are. If Lynch did a shot of the ear on the ground, it would be to demonstrate our relation to the ear through the lens of Heidegger's hammer.

Yes that's true. That's what I think too.
I suppose my question would be more along the lines of-
Quentin Tarantino and David Lynch are both considered huge names. I don't think anyone would argue that one of them aren't good at what they do, but Quentin Tarantino is very stylistic. It's very simplistic in it's execution, but it's so great because he implements the style with such talent.

So although it has all the appearances of pulpy fiction- I don't think anybody would argue that it's at that level.

But, you can make similar comparisons in literature, take, Chuck Palahniuk for example. Veeky Forums hates him. But I'd compare him to Quentin Tarantino without a moment's hesitation. Maybe- even better, based on the fact that he tends to experiment with his works more. I'll admit I haven't read any of his newer works, but Palahniuk does what he intends to do very well. The same way Quentin Tarantino does. But, at the same time, comparing Palahniuk to an author of literature is almost unthinkable. But why?

>Source?
I studied fashion and design.

>most art could be appropriated for practical purposed.
Yes, but practical application isn't a requirement. Whether it has one or not doesn't matter.
Design has that requirement.
My teacher gave this example:
If a bowl is a piece of art, maybe it has holes down the side, or maybe it doesn't.
If a bowl is design, it CAN NOT have holes down the side.

ask me how i know you are african

If a bowl has holes down the side, maybe it's a coarse strainer. But that's not your point, I know. Nonetheless, most of what I said is still relevant. In fact, such a fundamental limitation of design actually reduces its potential range of artistic meanings.

Communication is at play too. Design usually only makes statements but art can ask questions.

>such a fundamental limitation of design actually reduces its potential range of artistic meanings.
Yes that's true, but that's why there's a distinction between art and design. And circumventing those limitations is a requirement of designers. It's a requirement that isn't really asked of artists.

Artists have creative freedom, designers on the other hand, must be creative in response to restrictions.

Creativity is not the sole basis for artistic merit, and it's certainly not enough on its own. A designer can do their job well without being subversive, insightful, or evocative, but an artist has to have at least some of these and other qualities. A designer can delve into these areas if they choose to, but they can never go as far as a pure artist.

It's when a work has a unified crafted purpose and everything you mentioned works in concert together for that idea. Both parts are necessary, for example a sci fi novel could be working with an idea but goes nowhere with it or doesn't integrate it successfully. It's very easy to pick a work of literature apart from a book that does nothing more than "oo wouldn't it be cool if..."

These are true also... I won't deny that design isn't as intellectually enriching as art. And man, this comparison really got away from me, but, does that mean that design isn't valid on it's own? It's true that it lacks the depth of art, by virtue of its restrictions, but does that mean it's less valuable? Of course it depends, but personally, I don't think so.

Communication is a much broader topic (ie. you can't not communicate). Personally, I believe art is a type of communication. I believe that for something to be art it must communicate with the viewer- it's the only conclusion I managed to come to. But... that only applies to art, if I'm talking about art. Of course communication is in everything, but using the same goalposts for two things that are inherently different (even if they're similar) is doing both of those things a disservice. Isn't that reducing those things down to their medium instead of focusing on their qualities as individual works?

>I studied fashion and design.
What is the difference in practical application of the floral pattern Design on my shower curtain and the one of birds?

Some people like flowers more and some people like birds more.

If we dig further into the value comparison we may end up like the meme of Peterson and Harris fighting over the definition of the term without making any progress.

Maybe it's just the inherent and subconscious way you can distinguish between nudity and pornography. Smarter men than me can probably explain it but I think most people at least can recognize it.

>Some people like flowers more and some people like birds more.
But there is no difference of that and Art. A shower curtain can be the same exact color as a rothko painting unbeknownst, the person who would like the Rothko painting as art, and the person who would like the shower curtain color as design,

and better point I remembered I wanted to say, take the flowers and bird design off, and print it on a canvas to hang down the hall

Ok, well I think I see what you mean, and get what you were getting at. Art made by an Artist, is usually: What the artist wants to make (is that always true though, a painter commissioned to paint some old lady, may mona lisa, who would rather be painting horses and flowers) and Design is usually: Art applied, art molded around concept/object/scene

Design is still Art. It is possible it is just not the purest expression of the artist... maybe...

It is rather arbitrary, fuzzy, semantics things, but you were being certain about your definitions so I was trying to push their and your bounds, to see what we can see.

Look, to be honest, I'm a little too drunk by now to give you a really detailed answer, but the short answer is this: shower curtains are pure function. At most, people will buy a color that matches the bathroom, or has a design they like. Hell, you can buy Klimt shower curtains if you want. I'm not sure what your point is.

Yeah, you got it. Of course, you always have to keep in mind that defining any creative endeavor is at least partially impossible since a part always stays with the creator, so no definition is 100% applicable (and keeping in mind that there's a difference between creative design and "design" to sell chinese knock offs) but yeah. As it stands, that's pretty much it.

It is a fuzzy thing that I probably broke down into too small pieces and lost meaning along the way.

My conception of the differences and similarities between art and design are probably way off base.

The best example I could use, which again is probably silly, is The Sistine Chapel is design (a great book) but the painting on the ceiling is art (literature).

>Look, to be honest, I'm a little too drunk
Excuse me sir *crshh, weve got a 2-4-9er, over... appears hostile, we may need backup*, license and registration, and will you please step out of the internet? You know you should'nt be drinking where you shit-post user.

No officer, I just used some mouthwash, that's all, honest.

A bad book is one you want to throw against the wall. A normal book is one you stop reading if you get distracted by something. A good book is one that makes you want to read more of it after it's done. A great book is one that makes you feel like you're reading a good book but feels complete after the last page. I don't think you can declare something literature until a generation or two of critics have died, and new ones are still finding something in the work. Because literature for me is a work that speaks to something universal, and you need a long perspective to see it.

Beyond these broad and subjective categories I really have no opinion.

>No officer, I just used some mouthwash, that's all, honest.
Thats what a liar would say. turn around and spread your cheeks, now! *requesting back up* ive got quite a sweet mouth I hope this search doesnt give me any cavities *officer 244, reporting, going in for duty, copy, over*, *roger that, mind turning your body cam on for the boys back at the base?* *bravo, major bravo, Major Bravo*

Just bought a book of marshenikov paintings and a tube of durex tingly lube from Amazon.

>what is literary merit
.
.
.
.
.
>what is art
.
.
.
>what is it to be human

pic related

good book has texture, aids pattern recognition and insight, teaches you stuff, uses archetypes/themes in stimulating ways. don't overthink this

PS french tip nails are classic whore-tell

time

its a fucking painting

>PS french tip nails are classic whore-tell

When one doesnt have the 'seductively posing nude in shiftied sheets' to go by

Yes, a painting of a man

as you do

i tried once
it was disappointing

I'm a fan of Wallace, but please don't try to legitimize the pseudo-intellectual drivel in that essay. Can he not comprehend that the possibility these directors channelled identical sources but interpreted them individually- Lynch included?

Art makes us feel something we don't want to feel.

Isn't that what he does in part of that essay? Explain the difference of Tarantino and Lynch's interpretations of similar influences.

y-you didnt wait for the paint to dry, d-did you?

exactly. Most of the time you don't!

OP should read this.