[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 417 KB, 1200x1200, william-shakespeare-194895-1-402.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16167920 No.16167920 [Reply] [Original]

Ok, let's finally settle this. This is THE criterion for literary geniality. For being a genius you have to create both:
1) Innovation in themes.
2) Innovation in techniques.
Tell me, how does Shakespeare match this criterion?

>> No.16167928

Innovation in literature is impossible.

>> No.16167954

Justify your criteria and define "innovation", also, post examples of geniality in literature.

>> No.16167969

>Innovation in themes.
The most foolish of all errors is for clever young men to believe that they forfeit their originality in recognising a truth which has already been recognised by others.
-Goethe
>Innovation in techniques
Do you just a work by its novelty? Otherwise expand on innovation in techniques.

>> No.16167976

>>16167928
It is. Before Sannazaro, nobody wrote eclogues in prose. So in that sense, Sannazaro innovated with his Arcadia (new technique). Therefore, innovation in literature is possible. The fact that you're saying this on behalf of the alleged geniality of Shakespeare is just a pathetic cope since you cannot explain why is he a genius.

>> No.16168203

bump.

>> No.16169581

>>16167920
Innovation depends on the context, it can be innovation only if it deviates from the norm. At a certain point, however, the norm changes, while the structure of the work stay the same. A once innovative work can become the core of the standard (for example, Whitman's free verse - relatively innovative in the 19th century, although free verse practically existed since the antiquity, - but totally common thing today). Thus, it turns out, Whitman and Shakespeare and Sannazaro and whoever you want - is not innovative by today's standards, when we have hundreds upon hundreds of texts resembling theirs or being influenced by them. Far too often people are left untouched by the classics because they feel familiar and predictable even though those readers have never read the particular text before.
Even if you disregard this, you can just try to be more meticulous as a reader and find that the known innovators were just doing some shit that some forgotten writer did a few centuries earlier. I've read troubadour poetry that is basically dadaism/surrealism. Fun, but it really says nothing about the value of troubadour poetry or of dada/surrealism.

>> No.16169799

>>16167920
No it isn't. Insight into human nature is the criteria. Shakespeare knows more about how people work than almost any other single writer.

>> No.16169823

>>16167920
Well you're not exactly showing much innovation here by not being able to tell.

Furthermore your criterion is extraordinarily simplified.

>> No.16169835

Shakespeare would’ve been a nobody if he was born anywhere else. Anglos had to push their meme in order to fit in Europe high society. Otherwise, they would’ve been known for what they are, inbred swamp folk.

>> No.16171086

>>16169581
Obviously talking about innovation I'm referring towards his time's context.

>> No.16171096

>>16169799
>Insight into human nature is the criteria
So that means no criteria. Whatever I like is a human insight. Anglos are hacks.

>> No.16171739

>>16167920
You're tying genius too much to social context, under your criteria any great work of literature would be considered bad if it was written latter which is absurd

>> No.16171744

im genius

>> No.16171774

>>16171739
Yes, but this isn't a reddit multiverse where "yo imagine that Virgil wrote epic homeric-like poetry in latin in the XXI century..."

>> No.16171804

>>16171774
Obviously literature almost always exists in a social context but that doesn't suddenly mean that you should look to that context to decide the value of literature. There's plenty of questionable art with wide reaching impact on later works but if I picked out a particular example of cape shit or something as basically creating the entire genre you wouldn't call it genius for example

>> No.16171812
File: 90 KB, 820x500, fren.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16171812

>>16171744
nice, me too

>> No.16171848

>>16171804
The contextual aura of the work of art is what gives a standard value from which you can analyze more or less objectively the creativity of a work of art. And that's the only thing that matters in art: new ideas. Making the same outdated shit doesn't make you a genius, you can be a master replicating the artwork of the past naturally, but anyways that doesn't make you a genius. A painter who the only thing he does is replicating Velázquez's patings in a way that you cannot distinguish between the original and the copy is not a genius, is a skilled fraud.

>> No.16171855

>>16167928
Tell me how I know you're Jewish

>> No.16171859

>>16171848
You don't really understand how art works, art isn't some frictionless expression ideas, anyone that's skilled enough to be a modern Joyce even if derivative would still be a great artist

>> No.16171869

>>16171859
And a great artist is not a genius.

>> No.16171874

>>16171848
By this criterion art that's created without the knowledge of prior similar works is still equally valuable despite not being innovative

>> No.16171884

>>16171874
Maybe in a cave, but this is the real world and we have a huge history behind.

>> No.16171890

>>16171869
Anyone who has mastered an art form well enough to produce art of the caliber I'm talking about would be considered a genius by conventional parlance and if your definition of genius is being innovative you're arguing in circles

>> No.16171903

>>16171890
"A genius" of Joyce's height wouldn't write the Ulysses a second time.

>> No.16171905

>>16171884
People aren't omnisciently literate, as mentioned previously it's fairly common for some more obscure work to done an idea prior to some more widely recognized piece and often the author was unaware that what he made had been done previously

>> No.16171911

>innovation in themes

there are certain perennial themes which are endlessly seminal, capable of unlimited variance in expression, insight or composition (love, family relationships, the impact of class conditions or history on human aspiration, the tragedy of death etc.)

originality in theme does not strike me as being particularly important, let alone a necessary criterion for genius

>> No.16171912

>>16171905
In which case he was doing recurrent shit dude. I don't care. Like I'm going to discover the derivatives in 2020 because I don't know a shit of math, look at me I'm a genius.

>> No.16171915

>>16171903
You're arguing in circles, you're defining genius as being innovative and then saying that that proves innovation is the criteria for genius

>> No.16171920

>>16171911
Lolita is innovative in themes because it presents a history of love (love histories are an ancient theme) with a new perspective (pedophile). Innovation in themes is crucial. Nobody would read a second lolita, that's amateur bullshit.

>> No.16171923

>>16171912
If you literally didn't know shit about math and then self developed calculus you would achieved more than Newton, Newton himself was already working from prior advancements in mathematics. Someone independently deriving calculus today in fact would be so insane that's it's actually practically impossible

>> No.16171925

>>16171915
What proves innovation is the innovation itself compared to their predecessors.

>> No.16171927

>>16171923
Would've

>> No.16171930

>>16171923
SKILLED MAN≠ genius
WHAT PEOPLE CALL GENIUS≠ genius
NO INNOVATION ≠ genius
LOOK THIS MAN IS VERY CLEVER ≠ genius.

>> No.16171933

>>16171925
Did you mistype here, obviously innovation is defined as creating something new but you haven't explained why that's the criterion for genius

>> No.16171935

not a single argument for sHACKespeare yet

>> No.16171943

>>16171933
Because a genius without new ideas has no creativity. And you can't say someone is a genius without creativity, because if you say that, you're a retard cheating yourself. Creativity > creation > creation= new ideas from the nothing.

>> No.16171945

>>16171930
You actually have to make an argument for why what you say in this post is true, you also haven't explained why creating without knowledge of similar work isn't a creative act, in that case you aren't working off of prior work and what you create ultimately comes from your self rather than from imitating previous work

>> No.16171949

>>16171935
Just read Julius Caesar or King Lear or something. If you don't get it there's no hope for you.

>> No.16171950

>>16171943
>A genius has to be creative
You have to actually make an argument for this instead of just saying it

>> No.16171957

>>16171949
HAHHAHAH this level of cope.
>hehe read this UAU is amazing but I cannot explain why
Give me the innovation. Where's the innovation in themes/techniques? I can't find them >>16171949
anywhere.

>> No.16171961

>>16171950
Look, we're done, if you can't accept that I don't gonna spend more time because this is pointless.

>> No.16171985

>>16171961
I mean if you want to call it here that's fine, I shouldn't be spending time on image boards anyways, this whole thread exists because you want to shit on Shakespeare which I don't even care about so good luck with that I guess

>> No.16172047

>>16171957
I'm sorry... you're too far gone...

>> No.16172342

>>16171930
There is innovation in every creative act, you're just too autistic to notice it.

>> No.16172598
File: 50 KB, 780x780, a41159ce4aa0453eb28571d6a5e1533035bff644.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16172598

>>16172342
Some innovations are more innovatives than others. That's where the genius lies.

>> No.16173133

My english is not perfect it's not my first language. Could someone define me clearly Innovation in art? As the way I see it, ( i'm not a philosoph), creation is always coming from something already existing. Cavemen draw animals and hunts, french naturalists were writing using scientific precision and concepts as scientists were developping new ways to see the world, etc. The human mind cannot build on nothing. So what is innovation if not the ability to make a synthesis of already existing concepts, those combination beeing unique and never thought of before. Innovationwould not come from a form of idealized genius but from the ability of the creator to understand the world around him and to shape it into different forms of expression. Maybe you already understood that and I am writing this pointless message for no one but my opinion is that searching for something more innovative or totally new is kind of pointless because it doesn't exist. The only thing worth studying in art is how those combinations are developped and how it resonnates with the time and the influences of the artist.

>> No.16174528

>>16167920
I would replace "Innovation" which is not necessarily difficult or worthwhile, with "Achievement." Shakespeare probably didn't write all of his works alone; his company's achievements are surely notable though.

>> No.16176027

>>16173133
You're right.