Why does it seem like Literature is so seperated from the rest of the Arts?
When one mentions an Artist, people rarely think of a writer. It would not be out of place to find a "School for the Arts" that has no writing program.
Poetry gets close, but still, seperated without the stage performance addition of slam poetry.
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
If you say "artist" everyone will think about visual arts
If you're a musician, a movie director/actor or an architect and you call yourself "artist" everyone (people on Veeky Forums incouded) will call you pretentious
Musicians and actors get called artists all the fucking time, don't know what you're on about.
Architect I'll agree, no one calls them artists, but what people think Architects do is actually what Blueprint Engineers do
>tfw I want to be an artist but I'm only good at writing
Artistry isn't about medium, its about skill and execution.
A fucking garbage man could be an artist in garbage collection.
Skill without imagination is craftsmanship. There's nothing wrong with craftsmanship, so don't call every job well done a work of art.
being an author is a pretty outdated profession within the general populace imo, the average person can't name more than 10 contemporary authors. when you say "artist" most people will assume youre referring to a visual artist or a musician, and though movies may be referred to as works of art from time to time, i dont know too much about people who refer to actors/directors as artists.
only people who really refer to actors, directors, architects, etc. are people in those respective professions themselves or their close admirers, in other words, people who take the time to appreciate what those individuals do.
appreciating a good painting/song (oh, this looks/sounds nice) is much more doable than appreciating a good work of literature (analyzing the tone, prose, themes, etc) so its much easier to consider the former an artist than it is the latter for most laymen
Why tell the garbage man he can have no imagination in his art?
Just because YOU have no imagination for it doesn't mean he can't discover something for it.
It's why you're not an Artist and he is.
People attach the word artist to DJs and singers like Kesha. The word has almost become meaningless
Picking up trash is not art. Someone who is creative is suddenly not an artist.
>Picking up trash is not art.
Guess what my next performance is gonna be, fag?
1) The first irony here is that you call others out for reducing the arts to "the plastic" or "the familiar" (popular music) arts, while you at the same time seem by context to want to box your "authors" into prose fiction, or general fictional enterprises. It's possible I've misread you, but I don't think so.
2) Admittedly the OP wants to phrase the arts in general as including literature, which suggests the "lighter, more fiction-y" bits of literature in general. But this just goes to my point. Veeky Forums itself puts itself in this box of only doing prose fiction, poetry, and philosophy, when of course any books will do. I can remember attempting to start threads about non-fiction books on this board and having them go nowhere. But let me put my money where my mouth is.
Has Veeky Forums ever read a good non-fiction book, or a good non-fictional survey pertaining to the arts? Pic related is one of my favorite art books. All "popular meme-artist" digs aside, It taught me a bit about geography, Escher's family history, and additionally provides a complete cataloque raisonne of his work, as you'd expect of a very good art book.
You can't do what DJs and Ke$ha do.
You have neither the charisma nor the dedication.
>call others out
im pointing it out. there is no irony. i never said i dont do the same thing.
im referring to normies since OP's post is clearly asking about the opinion of the general public, and with a book like that, you have to sit down and take the time to appreciate it, people not into that type will skim it and see it as just words they dont understand and not worth learning about.
a book about art =/= art
can anyone in the (mythical) general populace name more than 10 visual artists? visual art in the traditional sense is just as dead, if not more so, than literature.
pop music and film/tv are the only artforms with recognizable artists in the modern age. yes, im not counting video games because for the most part these are done by faceless committees of producers and bored software engineers i am one of these to capitalize on dangling keys in front of manchildren.
I think that literature is not thought of as an art because it the hardest to appreaciate. Normies/artsy people are intellectually lazy, and listening to a song, looking at a painting, and giving an opinion is much easier than reading a novel and analyzing it.
Who the fuck looks at paintings anymore? Shit, I went to the Louvre and nobody gave a fuck about any of that shit except for taking a selfie in front of the Mona Lisa.
It takes a kind of skill that i doubt you have. To discuss what is going on technically, realize when it's being done well and when badly, to become familiar with the different schools of thought, etc. It's just as deep an area of knowledge as literature. But most goofballs think that if you throw more time at something it's better because of it.
Already done by Arman in the 1960s.
It's funny because the category of 'art', especially the highest genres of, relies so heavily on its supporting literature. History painting of religious or mythological subjects through to the avant-garde. Greenberg proposed abstract art was popular because it moved away from the illusionism of literature as the dominant art form of the past couple of centuries, but this justification is in itself only supported by written evidence.
By 'traditional sense' do you mean painting? Because visual art in general is still very much alive.
> im not counting video games because for the most part these are done by faceless committees of producers
How is this different from the workshop or guild systems of the past?
and for good reason
like it or not, serious visual artists are the pinnacle of human expression
Goya says more in a painting that Scorsese has in most of his career. I'd bet Scorsese would agree without hesitation.
>visual art in the traditional sense is just as dead
just as dead as they've always been, which is to say not at all
when was the last time you were at a gallery or museum, ffs?
same as it was 100 years ago, kiddo
quit romanticizing the past
literature attempts to put in words what the other art forms say can't be described...
...
I'm not a fan of claiming one medium is better than the other but I agree that visual arts are the most 'advanced' and immediate, and it's hard not to compare it to other media that seem to lag behind. I watch TV, listen to music, watch film (occasionally) for fun but there isn't a serious avant-garde or 'higher form' of the medium. It is possible with music, I think, but with moving images the combination of multiple arts only limits the potential of the medium rather than make it a 'complete' and thus 'superior' one. Literature and the visual arts arrived at a 'postmodernism' around the same time but I think because our society relies on images, signs, symbols to function and the visual is privileged much more highly than other senses that static images (especially photography) have been able to better address more relevant concerns of our society and art's place within it.
DiChirico, Hopper, Genieve Figgis, Carole Wainio, Michaël Borremanns
painters, all
words can't touch their stuff
This is a good question- I had a similar question for lit that I think ties into this question: why are people so fucking pretentious in regards to lit in way they aren't compared to the other arts.
I think it's tied together with the fact the writing is actually written. For a long time, writing was only accessible to the rich, and with writing it's literally, well, written down, so it gives an illusion as to being easier to analyse. Also, you can strip enjoyment from writing in a way you can't from the other arts.
There's this weird, pervasive idea enjoying things is immature, so, not enjoying a book, but reading it and understanding it anyway is mature and intellectual.
I think that's the answer to both of our questions- anyone can consume visual art and music, but only "intellectuals" can read. There has always been this schism between the academic and everything else- with real, practical implications like with en.wikipedia.org
where academics, baffled by ancient hairstyles scratched their heads for decades but never bothered to y'know, ASK a hairstylist.
these things are all stupid and antiquated, but these things are have become ingrained in us over hundreds of years and they tend to hang around.
Writing is a skill to be learned, not a talent.
Well, because most of society is intellectually lazy, and pseuds love to pretend to be patrons of the arts without actually taking the time to eduacate themselves. As a result, they are attracted to the mediums of art that are easier to hide their severe lack of knowledge, painting/music.
When you don't know shit about literature, it's very easy to spot it, plus it takes the time to read a book to form an opinion regarding. I'm sure that it is the same with analyzing a painting, but pseuds can more easily give a half-assed opinion, and pretend to be artsy. I mean shit, dude, i see all the time with the group of "artists" i know.
Because literature takes actual intelligence
Music doesn't?
>Why does it seem like Literature is so seperated from the rest of the Arts?
Because literature isn't consumed the same way as other arts are but is rather solitary.
By choice. All Arts can be consumed solitary or communally, but by choice.
>When one mentions an Artist, people rarely think of a writer.
But I do
You misunderstood me. Lit can not be consumed. You can't hang it on the wall the same way you can with visual arts or play it to friends. It's also highly personal and subjective.
>Lit can not be consumed
Ha
> You can't hang it on the wall the same way you can with visual arts or play it to friends.
HAHA
What the fuck is a bookcase, you stupid nigger?
What the fuck is reading aloud to a group of friends you slant eye chink?
>It's also highly personal and subjective.
HAHAHAHA
WHAT IS ALL ART, FAGGOT
most art can appear in dreams as it is. novels can have dreamy elements, but there is also a consciousness or dialectic which is incompatible with dream-mode, hence why poetry seems more artistic than prose.
>What the fuck is a bookcase, you stupid nigger?
Are you really that thick?
Keep your books in boxes if you're set on not displaying them
>If you're a musician, a movie director/actor or an architect and you call yourself "artist" everyone (people on Veeky Forums incouded) will call you pretentious
I've never seen anyone do the latter.
The "school" you described is pure fantasy. In my city, there's (I'll simplify things a bit) a school for drama+film, one for painting+sculpture+architecture, one for the literary arts (which has no problem with delving into and analyzing other mediums) and one for music. I don't see the separation that you described. Also, when one says "artist", the first image that comes to mind is a painter and a sculptor. Writer, film director and musician are all secondary meanings. I'd like to see proof of your claims that isn't imagined or based on something as imprecise as language.
>appreciating a good painting/song (oh, this looks/sounds nice) is much more doable than appreciating a good work of literature (analyzing the tone, prose, themes, etc)
False equivalency. You don't have to analyze a book to enjoy it, just like you don't have to do with a song. The masses devour Harry Potter and ASOIAF, after all. Actual deeper appreciation takes effort in all areas - analyzing the style and philosophy in a book or rhythm and tonality in music.
Veeky Forums is for discussion of literary ARTS and philosophy. Why do you expect people here to care about Escher? Ideally you should take this stuff to /ic/ and discuss it there. That's where you're supposed to talk about visual arts.
this picture instills me with a sense of dread desu
Yeah, it's why they're making a film about a painting
This is the title of my diary, desu.