/lit/ - Literature

>>6634996
>Ah y que hibari chan es mi waifu.
No había leido esto, un honor. Aunque no entiendo qué habrás querido decir con la segunda mitad de la primera oración.

>>6512407
music is extremely symbolic, probably more than painting. it relates to ideas and feelings without representing them.
reducing art to beauty is dumb since it includes non human made objects and objects produced with the correct techniques. if anything beauty is a subproduct of correct implementation of resources.

again, Gundam aside, thinking that art is about expression or reception limits it to be a particularly detailed type of communication. that implies ignoring every historic use and relationship with art, so it's defining it as something unrelated to it's history.

Gadamer considers art at an anthropological level as a mix between a social gathering, a very codified expression and a non-logical reading. All three at the same time. It's a nice analysis.

The biggest thing right now are instalations. That way you mix sound, image, architecture and interactivity. There are some very interesting pieces and there's absolute zero chances of piracy unless you are the most dedicated pirate and dedicate one or more rooms of your house to it.
It also has the plus that the artist just has to design something that could work, and each museum has to hire guys that actually build it.

>>6401805
That's all "cathalytic" (is that the right word?), it's not the meat but exactly the oposite... the seasoning let's say. The plot could be the same without MacLane being shoeless, but that thing is what makes the movie different from the rest. That isn't structure, that's just personality or color or whatever you want to call it.

>>6401782
I mentioned dramatic sequences in a link to wiki I posted. Constructivists and structuralists studied a ton of classic tales and proposed that there are unly 36 or 39 (depending the author) possible "things to do". How they connect is what makes each story, but at the end it's always falling back in those. Wiki has a pretty bare bones article, but it mentions the books that you should buy if you're interested.

>>6401824
It's really easier if you strip down the stories. As MacLane deals with the terrorists the black cop deals with the burocracy and his own issues. Each one is living their own movie that only connects in that last shot.
STILL, the climax of the film is the closure of the narrative, i.e. killing Hans. The first impression that MacLane killed him just opened the door for the real climax.
It's important to diferentiate the key actions of the plot from the obvious constant progression of things happening. You have to find the items that are 100% needed for the plot to occur, many just would change how things play out but not really the full plot (if John hadn't killed any terrorist it would had worked the same in the end, if the office asshole hadn't tried to score with his wife it would it's the same, and so on)

>>6401896
>somesays letter
kek'd a little

>>6402562
The Hunter Thompson school of writing.

>eons
>art undefined
>that analogy
when you talk about things you've never read about with that tone you make yourself sound pretty dumb.
>eons
The concept of "art" comes from the middle ages, romans if you really push it. Outside of europe what we understand as art was seen mostly as religion, personal growth or closer to what we call craft. While in Europe it was also religion, the independency between the creators and the formal institutions resulted in people wondering why they did it. They took the concept of "beauty" from Plato (that which is both true and healthy) and mixed it with Aristotle (the perfect equilibrium) and proposed that "art" (i.e. the cultural production for the high class) was a representation of the perfect equilibrium created by god.
When the enlightenment came and they needed to throw god out of the boat they switched to the idea that artists can improve upon the work of god, becoming demi gods in the process. Obviously artists loved that shit. That's where the concept of genius comes from, you're doing magic if you're good with art.
But by that time teaching art had become a thing., and to teach art you need to invent standards. Since at that time a lot of greek art was rediscovered the idea was that religion failed to understand the concept it had created and that the true beauty was imitating the greeks (this is what we call neo classicism). Which was a dumb concept because it was limited as fuck, but together with the re discovery of the camera obsucre and the implementation of perspective resulted in some of the greatest works ever made.
By the end of the 19th century artists had forgotten about that greek crap because they remembered the rest of the world had some pretty cool stuff (Van Gogh, for example, was heavily influenced by Japan and he had some impact there too; to this day they love him more than europeans and those love him a lot). Art no longer was about the greeks or reality but about the artist.
How come, then, we could still enjoy classical paintings? The main answer is that from the Frankfurt School: art is a inherent reflex in a human. It's not in the work, it's not in the author, it's not in the receiver. It's in all three. Walter Benjamin would call this the "aura" of a work.
But then, what happened with a movie or a photograph that can be multiplied a virtualy infinite number of times? How did this relationship exist when there isn't a single work made by a single artist but millions of copies made at least in half by a machine? Where is the creative genius when a dozen people worked in the film? How about a novel that was edited by someone else? The road gets trickier there, and I could say that there isn't a single road decided yet. In general authors have taken the route of considering a work of art as a text, and as such each copy carries the total of it (or, in case it was changed, it's a different text), and they focus more in the particular interpretation each can make (cont)