>mfw people read fiction for "ideas"
>mfw people think putting a book under such titles as Existentialism, Romanticism, Realism, means they understand it
>mfw people read fiction to "learn" from it
There is no practical use to art.
Art is to evoke beauty and pity through its use of style.
Nothing more.
t. undergrad who's never read an article on aesthetics in his life.
t. imbecile
that's retarded.
Messages/ideologies/ideas are implicit in everything. We are constantly creating meaning through categorization.
You can write a book with no idea of what your theme, message, or intention are. It might be more pure as a sensuous experience but also an indication of shallowness imo.
>wouldn't read Lacan to save his life
Wrong.
People suck meaning out of everything.
Art does not represent your sucking.
sure it does. Meaning is subjective but also relative. You can almost understand it objectively by using the historical and social context and increasingly complicated form of categorization that we use to create any meaning whatsoever in our lives
That has nothing to do with reading fiction for ideas
It's a work of art, not a historical manifesto, and no matter how much you try it will never be that
a work of art created by a consciousness in a historical and social context for a specific reason that is likely reflective (unless it's shit and narcissistic drivel)
>thinking deriving personal enlightenment from art is a bad thing and not one of the goals all art tries to achieve
Everything about your post is fine except
>Art is to evoke beauty and pity through its use of style.
What a narrow view of art.
You're creating historical meaning, the work itself isn't doing that.
Go watch a Ted Talk, redditor.
>because it's narrow it's false
in my opinion: all we are is historical meaning. all we can be is what other people see.
>anti-intellectual
>on Veeky Forums
>telling other people to go to reddit
heh.
I'm not saying it's false, it's just not applicable to all art. It's the kind of opinion one arrives at without considering all the evidence i.e. a lazy and dishonest thinking.
Spoken like a true dilettante
>anti-intellectual..
It is applicable to all art
I agree. Any justification for any kind of art, other than that it is a fun way to spend your time, is just pseud posturing.
typical Penguin Pedo thread. no one who isn't a pedophile thinks Nabokov is worth a shit. also, you're fullashit, there is utilitarian art, beauty in form itself, a tool can be a work of art in its simplicity of use.
Imbecile
>It is applicable to all art
Except when it's not. Are you trying to say that anything that doesn't evoke beauty or pity through it's style is not art? So you allow others to define art in a way that includes practicality. Basically you say nothing since you're not really referring to a real-life definition of what constitutes art.
You'll never convince plebs
Just let them have their dime-store novels from puffed up academics (with their half-penny minds and dry fig hearts)
>dime store novels
>implying nabokov didn't love Anna Karenina
Beauty and meaning are inextricable from one another in literature, brainlet. Why don't you go read a book in a language you don't understand if it's all about form?
You're an idiot.
t. fucking redditor
t. projecting
>Why don't you go read a book in a language you don't understand if it's all about form
HAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHA
WHAT
It's the absurd consequence of an absurd approach to literature. If meaning and ideas are at best ancillary and should be avoided in favor of stylistic elegance, the logical result is to read something which, to you, is totally absent such trifles. But of course, OP's approach to literature is pure sophistry, and nobody with any capacity for self-reflection could believe it.
See you next thread brainlet.
I love nabokov because he doesn't pretend his stories are real. he doesn't insult me by assuming I need realism to suspend my disbelief, or that I even have any disbelief; and he pours all his effort into the unadulterated beauty of the art.