/lit/ - Literature

No. We're creative beings, so anything we do to express ourselves is a bit of show and tell. Art, dance, music, debating, mentoring, etc.

No, it's just easier than doing so through film, music or any other creative pursuit.

Art, dance, music; those are not ways of showing people the way you see shit

if they are, none of us faggots would be able to see what the fuck there trying to show us anyways

Nope. Each medium can do all of that. Just certain people respond to a certain type more than others. It's likely though that for most people on this board, writing would be the way to go.

FUCK YOU
think i cant shake my ass

my balls a flap and my ass a claps, i could pick up Shakira with these hairy ass cheeks

>>2104515


You fucking thick cunt. Painting and music show the world in a far more profound manner than any novel ever has done or can do.

The novel is art for the bourgeois mass - the lowest common denominator of the middle brow. It's an enertainment with some pretension to artistic merit, but no novel has ever come close to the artistic expression of the Ode to Joy, or the Tres de Mayo or Paradise Lost.

Novels are for children, invalids and shopgirls. They show the world, but in a limited and limiting way.

>>2104533
Prepare for butthurt.

>Paradise Lost
>Lost
the game

>>2104533
>>2104533

Certainly profound!

But not meaningful.

>>2104533
I'm not saying it's not art. I'm saying it dosnt put you into the mind of another person, like writing can.

>>2104551

You can look at a Goya or a Rembrandt and truly say that? Because if you can then you're probably lacking the reference points and vocabulary of true art.

Novels are superficially revealing becuase they have a simple structure - you start at page one, read the words and carry on until the end - this provides the middlebrow with enough material to work on, understand and chatter about. True art offers no such handrails and protections, and leaves the observer to work their way through it by themselves.

Novels are a disposable entertainment. Pic related is art.

>>2104562

No.

I think any visual medium wins out over writing, OP.

Any artistic endeavor is capable of expressing the creators internal ideas, but as far as literally SHOWING them a world, the visual is required.

When we read a story/novel, were are only given the words, and even if it's intricately detailed, I'm still building the world in MY head using MY experience and knowledge, not the writers. So the pictures we see are more likely to be different.

Now if you're talking beyond just visual representation and are looking at deeper message and meaning behind the worlds being built, you might have a case.

>>2104562
paintings are closer to craft than art.

They serve the role of allowing people to experience things that literature can't describe.

You know that phrase 'a picture tells a thousand words'? Well it does and it doesn't. It's far less subjective than the words could be.

>>2104589

>It's far less subjective than the words could be.

In this thread - idiots, the ill-educated and people who seem to believe that art is objective.

pic related, it's more challenging and subjective than anything that Joyce ever acheived. In actuality, the majority of the modernist literary aesthetic was an attempt to make the novel as honest and pure as the things that modernist painters were acheiving. If you actually read the letters of the modernist writers, they basically wanted to write like Picasso painted or Stravinsky composed.

Currently listening to the Overture from Tristan und Isolde by Wagner, and it says more than any novel I've ever read. In eleven minutes.

Just for the record, I don't hate novels - I read hundreds of the fucking things. I just don't pretend that they're particularly profound, or that there's any functional difference between James Joyce and Martin Amis.

>>2104606
>pic related, it's more challenging and subjective than anything that Joyce ever acheived

What do you mean by 'subjective'

>>2104606
Seems like you still don't understand what i meant to say.

As an example: You give a painting a name. The name is now a reference to the entirety of the painting. It is another word, even if each person experienced the painting differently. A novel is thousands of words specifically arranged in order to express something else.

I wonder if you're just going to dismiss this or not, but if you do, could you explain why?

>>2104612
What do you mean by "mean"?

>>2104615
You wouldn't be capable of asking me that question unless you understood what I meant by 'mean' in the first place

>>2104615

>>2104613

No, I confess I don't have any clue what you're talking about, althogh I will say that many artists have addressed the problem of

>You give a painting a name.

By not giving them names - that's why there are so many untitled paintings.

>It is another word, even if each person experienced the painting differently. A novel is thousands of words specifically arranged in order to express something else.


I honestly don't get this point, and I'm not trolling - are you saying that the novel, since it's designed specifically to express something else, is more univocal, open to fewer readings?

>>2104612

Subjective means whatever you think it means, Herp&Derpy, you should know that by now.

>>2104619
>Subjective means whatever you think it means
That's a fundamental misunderstanding of how language is dialogic and how words get their meaning, humpty-dumpty

Music rots when it gets too far from the dance. Poetry atrophies when it gets too far from music.
~Ezra Pound

>>2104619

>By not giving them names - that's why there are so many untitled paintings.

But when an object has no name, is it acknowledged as as existing? At the moment i know of a few paintings that indeed have no name, but i can't refer to them to express what ("ones") i mean.

>are you saying that the novel, since it's designed specifically to express something else, is more univocal, open to fewer readings?

The conclusion that you came to is quite the opposite of what i'd have expected, but no worries. This also shows that subjective attribute of words and the meanings they convey.

I'd say that because the novel is only referring to other things in order to express itself, the novel itself can hardly be seen as anything other than the sum of all of its contents, and the reader's interpretation of the 'things'.

>>2104620

No, it's an acknowledgement that in the absence of perfect knowledge of the other, all dialogue has a subjective element, and we can never be entirely sure that another understands out words in the way we do - this is the disconnect which creates almost all great poetry.

pic related: it's you.

>>2104631
>But when an object has no name, is it acknowledged as as existing? At the moment i know of a few paintings that indeed have no name, but i can't refer to them to express what ("ones") i mean.

once more, Frege, with autism.

>>2104498
>Would you guys say writing is the only true way to show someone else the world through your eyes?
Art in general, obviously.

We should not find beauty in art until there is no poverty, there is no racism, there is no injustice, etc. Art is crap a reflection of life. True art should strive to destroy itself or contribute. Or contribute to society as its purpose, don't be so naive to think something does, and 90% of the classics are irrelevant and damaging to an attempt to understand the present world we live in, you can get more enlightment from the business pages. As well just because you can develop a web page doesn't mean you have anything worth saying, without standards who are we?

>>2104634
>it's an acknowledgement that in the absence of perfect knowledge of the other
Perfect knowledge (as if there was any such thing) of the "other" (whatever that's even suppsed to signify nowadays) has nothing to do with the manner in which words or more generally, language, works

>all dialogue has a subjective element
What do you mean by 'subjective'

>we can never be entirely sure that another understands out words in the way we do
Who said we had to be sure about anything?

>this is the disconnect which creates almost all great poetry
It's called ambiguity, Empson, and it's actually only one, not even the greatest (the more you appreciate a poem, after all, the less ambiguous it is), feature of all great poetry.

>>2104639

You really don't understand anything about poetics do
you, you poor cunt?

Education these days is so fucking shallow it makes me want to weep.

>>2104646
>You really don't understand anything about poetics do
you
What do you mean by 'poetics'?

>>2104647

http://tinyurl.com/5vt5nuc

>>2104647

He does this when he realises he has no clue what he's talking about - he'll probably start cuntpasting the same answer repeatedly in a moment.

Despite appearing occasionally as if he has some education, or something to say, D&E is just a really dull troll who's got about 2-3 moves at most. You may as well disengage from him now because it's all herpderp from here on in.

Just saying.

>>2104650
>He does this when he realises he has no clue what he's talking about - he'll probably start cuntpasting the same answer repeatedly in a moment.
No, I do this when someone presents me with a term that is ambiguous

>he'll probably start cuntpasting the same answer repeatedly in a moment
I do this when an earlier response is perfectly sufficient for a newer response.

>>2104647

What do you mean by 'mean'?

>>2104638
perfection is boring

>>2104650
Yeah, and D+E likes to try and assert that he has better things to do with his time.

Must be why he's here so often, engaging the same semantic bullshit for hours.

>>2104652
>>2104652

>No, I do this when someone presents me with a term that is ambiguous


Nah - it's classic undergraduate technique. "Define your terms, define your terms, let me twist and turn a little because I don't actually have enough substance to my education yet to pull this shit off".

It's no problem, you're 19, you know nothing - we all have to start somewhere, and we pretty much all do it by being an overweening, pretentious dick.

grow out of it soon though, eh son? Nobody likes a smart arse when they're all grown up.

>>2104653

I do have better things to do with my time, I'm writing an essay up for class as we speak.

I dont believe any form of art can "truly" show the inner world of the person who created it. This is because once the fragment of the inner world has been expressed, it is part of the outer world and interacts with the inner world of the receptor, with it's own intricacies and unique ways of processing external stimuli

>>2104660
>Nah - it's classic undergraduate technique.
Asking someone to clarify a term that's ambiguous is good practice whether you're an undergraduate or a professor.

>>2104660
The sad thing is that Derp and Derpy is pushing 30. If he was a teenager, I could sort of excuse his behaviour.

>>2104660

>i'm better than you, ergo, i am right.

>>2104635
Never read him, but isn't it only... logical?

>>2104669
You'll need to think harder about sinn and bedeitung if you think reference theories of meaning are tenable

>>2104663

No, it's really not. It's something that politicians and blowhards do, not intellectuals.

>>2104635
>>2104677

I see what you meant by 'with autism'. Actually pretty humorous.

But i think i will look into frege more, thank you D&E.

>>2104697
What do you mean?

>>2104696
>No, it's really not
Yes, it is. It's something anyone who likes someone to be clear about what they're talking about do.

The only thing I want to ask is Why.

>>2104704

what do you mean by Why?

>>2104706
Why do you mean by what?

>>2104707
What do you mean by "by"?

>>2104709
Why by?

>>2104639

It's called ambiguity, Empson.

It's actually called polysemy in poetics, since ambiguous is too ambiguous a word. You missed a chance to use a two-dollar word, you pretentious shit.

I'll give you a moment to google polysemy. While you're at it, look up Metonymy as well, because you never know, that may come up later as well.

>>2104713

>>2104755
>It's actually called polysemy in poetics
What do you mean by 'poetics'

Frankly, Empson dealt with poetry his entire life. If it was good enough for Empson to explain his view of poetry it's good enough for me.

>>2104759

>>2104764

Are you too dumb to google?

>Poetics refers generally to the theory of literary discourse and specifically to the theory of poetry
- That Wiki

>>2104612
I mean that the axioms for the "literary merit" of a novel are so arbitrary and only meaningful to the bourgeois mass that they're hardly more respectful than your average pleb wanting to read to relate to the character, or find out what happens next.

>>2104638
This is the problem I have with Nietzsche. I have a feeling he would be pretty butthurt after reading Brave New World.

>mfw this thread

>>2104905

2deep4you?

>>2104775
>Poetics refers generally to the theory of literary discourse and specifically to the theory of poetry
So you just mean literary theory

>>2104803
>I mean that the axioms for the "literary merit" of a novel are so arbitrary and only meaningful to the bourgeois mass
Who's the bourgeois mass supposed to be?

also, polysemy reflects the capacity for multiple meanings while ambiguity actuallly fulfills that capacity, so I was perfectly fine to use ambiguity

>>2104498
http://mashable.com/2011/09/23/scientists-brain-visual-memories/

The ONLY correct answer. Rest are gay.

>>2104948

>He thinks polysemy and ambiguity are the same thing
>he took two hours to come up with that shitty response
>he thinks he's been replying to me all this time when it was some other tard
>he might even believe that his answer to this will be read.

>>2104952
Still doesn't work for non-visual.

>>2104959
:D

>>2104958
>criticize for someone supposedly not understanding
>don't help them to understand
u gay sir, u gay.

>>2104962

Daft&Easy does't need my help in understanding things - he's /lit/'s resident genius. He'd be offended if a mere Anon such as myself attempted to make anything clearer to him.

besides, he'll be using all his google-fu right now to cut and paste someone else's opinion. He'll be back in about 80 minutes, on his current form.

>>2104962
this is 4chan son, not lit 101

>>2104965
>implying this isn't also 'lit101'

>>2104972

Not for D&E - he's struggling with his Open University Foundation Course over the internet. Mostly because fags like you keep disturbing him. He said he was writing a paper, have some respect.

He's probably chewing the corner of a book even as we speak

>>2104982

I must admit, that DID make me laugh.

A number of people make D&E sound really smart / fairly intellectual, but I've never seen any evidence of this.

Of course, I'm not that smart either. If I was, I could get a job flipping burgers. You know, working in fast food? For MacDonald's?

D&E is probably smarter than most here. But that's not saying much.

>Would you guys say writing is the only true way to show someone else the world through your eyes?
>on /lit/
>turns into hate dNe general.

>>2104958
I said the exact opposite of what you or the individual concerned is/are saying

>>2104999
>>2104999

I don't care about your police trips, my cat is smarter than D&E.