Why this board is mentally and cultural and IQ unable to have a proper discussion to define what constitutes good...

>Why this board is mentally and cultural and IQ unable
>to have a proper discussion to define what
>poetrhy

there is no such thing as good writing

there is writing that has a point to make and writing that does not

This board is infested with pomo degeneracy and rejects objective notions of good and bad because of this

>rejects

So much for the tolerant left.

No it's not. People will pay millions for a few mathematically painted lines with a days worth of effort painted by someone famous, where local art galleries and flea markets sell highly detailed pastoral pieces with months if effort in them for tens or a few hundred dollars.

Beauty is on the eye of the beholder. Absolute cliche for absolute normie.

This is now Hiro's approved meta thread.
The frogposts and greentexts are getting out of hand.

Here are some objectively right opinions

God-tier writing:
Dante
Nabokov
Joyce
Proust

Great writing:
The Bard
Joyce
Milton
Blake
Borges
Wolfe
Pynchon

Good writing:
Fitzgerald
Dostoevsky
McCarthy
Lovecraft

Mediocre writing:
Hemingway
Steinbeck
Stephen King

Bad writing:
DFW
Vonnegut
Joseph Heller

If people like it, it's good. If not, it's bad.

Whether you like it or not, that's how it works.

>b-but xxx wasn't popular in his day, until like 50 years later, so what then smart guy I want to blow?

Well then people decided to like it, at some point. People can change their minds.

This user is right. But i do believe that the "level-cap" which defines excellence is not on a mild ground of tecnics, but instead, on a high ground.

>If people like it, it's good. If not, it's bad.
Nice reddit opinions. I bet you think JK Rowling is good

>Memes the list

>unironically calling Skakespeare "The Bard"

Your opinions are bad and I do not like you. Don't talk to me anymore.

Sorry but no, it doesn't work like this. Rupi Kaur may be one of the most popular "poets" on the planet right now, but that does not make her a good one. Popularity =/= talent. And my opinion is validated by the fact that time will wash away any memory of Rupi Kaur, while all the poets that were already established as great (for longer than a single, fleeting moment in pop culture) will continue to be revisited and remembered.

I don't, but who cares what I think? Bitch is the richest author living, and the majority of people love her work. So...doesn't matter what I think.

Ten years from now somebody could write the same thing, but with a mexican kid as a wizard, and it'll become huge, and everyone will look at jk as a joke. Sort of how it works.

You'd be missing my point about people's opinions changing over time.

Imagine that though, the that idea of, "Good writing," is really subjective even in it's own time, but can also drastically change over time as well, so it's kind of dumb to even be thinking about it in terms of good and bad, and maybe you should just read what you feel like reading and let others read what they feel like without having to impose what you think of as your superior opinions on others. No way that could be the case...

Name the exact objective parameters by which good art should be judged and why they should be used over all others

Form, composition, balance, rythm, flow, curves of movement (flow again), not being stiff, not cliche, originality.

There's more but those are the ones that are common among all arts.

In literature you can find:
use of grammar, rethoric, oratory, figures of speech, rythm in the prose, metrics, power of imagery, novelty in the word choise, word invention, vocab size, puntuaction, quality of metaphors and simils.

>Lit is so clueless

Also writing in informationally dense sentences (not using extra words) except when creating atmosphere.

You have failed to explain why these parameters should be used over all others, and in fact didn't even attempt to. Congrats.

im white

what do you mean?

All good art has those elements, amateurish art or poor art has not.

Simple as that.

>good art is defined by this
>why?
>because all good art has it

You're either too stupid to understand why your reasoning is wrong or are pretending to be because you just realized you have no way to back up your assertions, in either case all you've proven is how much of a joke the notion of objectivity in art is.

thank you 21 year old taking intro to college lit for the third time. Your opinion is surely true.

>good art has it
>poor art has not

???
All good art has such elements done in a intentional way that showcases the artists skill.

Amateur art generally ignores such elements because of the ignorance of the artists.

Art with such elements is better simply because the art that uses them is simply better than the art that lacks them, unless you want to argue that amateur work is the same as professional and there's not diference.

>can't provide a counter argument or willingness to debate the topic
>resorts to reddit opinion

Listen, since you are clearly unable to grasp this idea, I'll make it explicit for you: you cannot assume that certain works are good art then use them to define good art in an objective manner, because you cannot prove they qualify without a definition. All you've done is arbitrarily decided that certain works are good art, and based your parameters around them.

I'm not talking about X or Y works.

All the masterpieces tend to have such elements.
All the amateur works tend to lack such elements.

They're simply the formal ingredients to good art.

Unless you wanna argue that art devoid of such elements can be considered good by any standarts.

>but why they're choosen and not others
because good art has them, and they usually work together to give an emotional impact.

Just like a carpenter has tools, those tools are used by the artist skill into making an intentional effect.

Unless you wanna give me an argument why something stiff is better than something that has rythm and flow.

I thought it was so intuitive that I wouldn't of had to explain it, but since you request so, I will.

>Sentences of dense information
Because it conveys meaning more efficiently, thus increasing the entertainment value of the piece.

What would you suggest is required in a good piece of literature?

I just have to assume you're baiting at this point. "I'm not talking about X or Y works", immediately followed by "all the masterpieces"? What are the masterpieces and why are they masterpieces compared to other works? The circular logic at play here is so obvious it's hard to believe someone might actually miss it.

>Because it conveys meaning more efficiently, thus increasing the entertainment value of the piece
Not only is the link between conveying meaning more efficiently and being more entertained dubious, you've already assumed here that "entertainment" is the end goal of art, which is also unproven.

compare shakespeare to twilight by example.

>what are the masterpieces
western canon, bible, shakespeare, borges.

you cannot be a pro writer without an understanding of grammar by example.

>circular logic
The rules of art comes from the imitation of real life, but imitation that tries to polish real life into something more perfect, more valuable.

>circular reasoning
good art is derived from the works of art that we consider masterpieces in history.

>food tastes good
>we derive rules as to why food tastes good
>huh duh circular reasoning

In the end is about beauty and pleasure.

Not that guy but you're a fucking mongoloid. First of all you fail to define why they are the "formal ingredients to good art". I could just as arbitrarily say that eggs are essential to a good steak but the essence of a good steak isn't eggs.
>Unless you wanna give me an argument why something stiff is better than something that has rythm and flow.
stop shifting the burden of proof. you're the one who is claiming some arbitrary qualities are what makes good art.

I already told you retard.
they come from the imitation of real life, imitation that seeks to purify nature into something greater.

have you spend five minutes thinking about why some art is good and other is shit?

You can't fucking prove your point by giving an example holy fucking shit.
>food tastes good
>we derive rules as to why food tastes good
>huh duh circular reasoning
That's not even the same shit but assuming that is, you can only say that the rules applies to food you've tasted. There is a fucking is-ought gap that you're fucking ignoring

poemhunter.com/william-shakespeare/

here's one example.

>what are the masterpieces
>western canon, bible, shakespeare, borges
Prove these are masterpieces without relying on the parameters you've derived from them. If you cannot, that is circular reasoning.
>The rules of art comes from the imitation of real life
Why? Who determines that art must imitate real life?
>good art is derived from the works of art that we consider masterpieces in history.
So your idea of "good art" is arbitrary after all. This is just the Euthyphro dilemma. Also, explain why good art should be derived from works that have historically been considered masterpieces.

>>food tastes good
>>we derive rules as to why food tastes good
>>huh duh circular reasoning
Terrible analogy for what you're trying to prove. Different people have different physical reactions to the same food, there is nothing remotely objective about it.

>In the end is about beauty and pleasure.
Another fucking unproven assertion.

>they come from the imitation of real life, imitation that seeks to purify nature into something greater.
and you arrive at this conclusion how?
>have you spend five minutes thinking about why some art is good and other is shit?
Yes, and I have yet to come up with anything, perhaps you should also spend some time thinking about things you're taking for granted.

Whose mans is this?

>people can't enjoy learning or reading something intellectual
The main reason why you read a book is because it's pleasurable. Writing something for other people and reading what other people have writen isn't the same thing either

thegreatcourses.com/courses/how-to-read-and-understand-shakespeare.html

here, download this to see a PHD professor analyzing shakespeare.

>art must imitate life
life has infinite detail, we have monkey brains, our brains can't come up with something new or that has the 10% of detail a real life story has.

most of what we can do at best is modify elder works and remix them.

our brain can remix other pieces of art and can improve upon older works, but we can't create something new from imagination, is completelly impossible.

In the end your monkey brain will do is basically copy or remix shit from your real life or from other pieces of work.

For something to be trully original it needs to be an entire new copy from real life.

This doesn't mean however that remixing can't be made into a masterpiece, since usually the most original pieces of art steal from a hundred places.

art is about imitating or being inspired by real life.

>but muh chinese cartoons
the ones that aren't cliche garbage are based on non incestual pieces of art and usually tend to be about real life or mature topics (usually topics that matters IRL).

>but muh music from imagination
music is derived from our natural senses of patterns in audio and from these natural patterns stems our sensibilities about melody, rythm, bass, we simply discovers more something that is inherent IRL.

This is bait isn't it. What you're saying has nothing to do with what I'm saying at all.
Let's assume A is the first person to ever make good art. He makes a lot of good art. People think, that's great art! Somebody deconstructs it and comes up with several points that define good art. This is the essence of your argument is it not? But this argument is flawed because what something ought to be, based on past events, isn't what something is. Before seeing a white crow, you would think all crows are black. But we now know that is not true because there are albino crows.

>art is about imitating or being inspired by real life.
you're just making arbitrary statements that isn't backed by anything proof. I could say that art is taking a shit in a golden toilet and I'd have as much proof to my statement as you're giving to yours

the first guy had to copy it's art from somewhere (real life).

Generally the arts that don't copy from real life stagnate and don't even produce the same amount of creativity.

Are u blind?

Compare paintings that try to imitate realism, they have hundreds of diferent styles, even century and painter is unique, even while doing it for thousands of years, there are always new styles developed.

Compare it to any non realistic style or abstract, you can't tell apart an artists from another and they usually are pretty generic and derivate afterwards.

You can't innovate from simplifications in our minds, we don't have enough brain power to derive something deep if we don't copy it from somewhere.

Real life is the original source of art.

>Not only is the link between conveying meaning more efficiently and being more entertained dubious, you've already assumed here that "entertainment" is the end goal of art, which is also unproven.
Another user actually and i meant to reply to this post. Just because an author doesn't write a piece of work with the objective of it being entertaining doesn't mean the reader can't be entertained by it. Who decides the objective of a work of art, the creator or the consumer?

>Not only is the link between conveying meaning more efficiently and being more entertained dubious, you've already assumed here that "entertainment" is the end goal of art, which is also unproven.

Woah, okay, I didn't realise you were on an ultra-philosophical level.

I'll address your points from back to front. I would argue that art is to entertain, and entertainment in itself is an umbrella term that is different for everyone, but has commonly occuring trends. I would say to be entertained is to be inspired, humoured, interested or captivated, and you'll find that all those who appreciate art will appreciate it for one or all of the values I've just listed.

Finally in regards to ' the link between conveying meaning more efficiently and being more entertained' I would say that it is true because attention span is something that applies to all of us and on 'lit' pieces bloated with unnecessary information waters down the entertainment value of the piece because it taxes our attention span / interest. An analogy would be mixing water with wine, that wine would be less enjoyed in comparison to a more densely flavoured wine.

I'm still waiting for your input into what is required for a piece of art to be considered 'good'.

Guys please go back to plebbit or educate yourself if you can't comprehend basic logic.
inb4 you can't argue what I'm saying so you're resorting ad hominem attacks
I can and did, you just don't understand it and again and again insist on making baseless statements like they are some kind of universal truth

you do realize we're doing philosophy and not science?

What? Logic is one of the main branches of philosophy. Here's a Wikipedia article about what I'm trying to articulate but you're failing to understand en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_example
Really spend some time reading philosophy instead of shitposting on forum to seem smart. There's a great philosophy reading guide available in the 4chanlit wiki. I'll link it here: docs.google.com/document/u/1/d/1y8_RRaZW5X3xwztjZ4p0XeRplqebYwpmuNNpaN_TkgM/pub

Are you going to respond to me, I took a great deal of time writing that out for you, the only serious response you've been given, or would you rather argue with plebs?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

That's not me

Notice I didn't actually say your argument was false, all I said was, prove it. Because if you can't prove your argument, my argument that art is shitting in a golden toilet is just as valid as yours.

The main objective behind the creation of a piece of art is it's message. How talented the artist is depends on how well he manages to convey that message and whether or not that piece of art is good or bad depends on how it effects the consumer on an emotional and intellectual level. And this varies from person to person. If you can't understand this...

You're missing Camões on the God-tier...

I could point you to the idea of the Beautiful and the Sublime of Burke or to Plato's discourse on the nature of the Good. But that would be begging the question. At some point we need to arbitrarily impose a common ground for further exploration of good aesthetics.

this thread is thrilling

have you spend five minutes analyzing the elements of a masterwork?

Look fellas, here's the quick rundown and I'm outta here. There's two ways you can go with good art. The definition of good art can either be objective or subjective. If it is objective, you would have to first define some basic axioms about art and derive the lengthy arguments that you guys are deriving. And because you are the ones deriving the axioms, they'll be subjective. If it is subjective, good art today isn't good art tomorrow, good art to you isn't good art to me.

Honestly though, stop shitposting and read some books from docs.google.com/document/u/1/d/1y8_RRaZW5X3xwztjZ4p0XeRplqebYwpmuNNpaN_TkgM/pub

how did you fucking recognise that it was a masterwork before you started to analyse its elements?

Even if I spend my lifetime analyzing the elements of a masterwork, I can only understand what the elements ought to be, not what they are. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is–ought_problem

emotional/catharsis effect of the piece.

>le everything is relative cuck
>le there's not objective standarts cuck
>pls let my wife fuck niggers slippery slope

Never reply to one of my threads again

>something that is relative is relative
>everything is relative
O-okay user I wish I'd one day get on your level of alpha so I can tell girls I have a 12 inch pianist

Even if what you say is true, you still woudn't recognize a fresh great piece of art if it was shoved into your face because you're too blinded by public opinion to form your own one. Ex.: saying stephen king is shit because everyone else here says it's shit even though you're probably only read two or three books if any out of the 60+ he has writen, or that Joyce is great because everyone here says it's great even though you hardly enjoy anything he writes.

>taste and public opinion is the same as having criteria

>asks for proof for a statement
>you must be an everything is relative cuck
Okay pal

Funny how you seem to think that your point of view is superior to everybody elses. Why is it that what you consider to be good something everybody has to consider to be good?. There's always going to be someone smarter than you out there who will laugh at your taste. Hence the "everything is relative" element.