BF2S Forums BF3s Book Club

FEOS wrote:

Uzique wrote:

to stand alone as an autonomous work of art. that is my only requirement. what that work of art says, means and is worth is up to a whole series of perspectives and critical engagements.

Get deeper than that. It's not meant to just be looked at, like a painting. It's written to be read and understood. Why is that? To relay a meaning of some sort. If that meaning is not relayed because the author/artist was more focused on linguistic chicanery than on the purpose of writing, then they have failed at a very fundamental level, despite venting their artistic spleen. Writing is an art form hat has purpose as well as other, less tangible, qualities.

Not really. It's only a failure if it's intended audience rejects it. Success is not necessarily synonymous with profit. It's all a matter of intent. If a book was written for an audience of one, and it is beloved by that one, it is a success even though it was commercially non-viable.

I'm not saying that writing is simply to communicate a straight message, simplistically. But it is to communicate a message. If that message is not communicated to anyone other than the author, then the author has failed, has he not? It's a pretty simple concept.

I'm not saying Gatsby (or any other work) can't be considered a classic by others. But neither I nor anyone else has to like it simply because others call it a "classic." I will think for myself, thank you very much. What I like and don't like when it comes to the arts is for me--and me alone--to determine.

Uzique wrote:

no author hits it out of the park every time. where am i acting like that? we're discussing classics and all i'm venturing here (which isn't very outrageous) is that every classic has, on some basis, earnt its place in the canon-- that's part of the parcel of canonicity. i don't think that an artist has failed because you as a reader don't 'grasp' it, at all. say the author provides a schemata for reading his book, a sort of manual for the uninitiated. it illuminates the work and arms you with the requisite knowledge and approach to grasp the piece of art's intent: all of a sudden a doorway is opened and you can marvel at the artistic integrity and autonomy of the work. what your argument results in, at its logical conclusion, is that no books or pieces of art should be written that exclude anyone on the basis of knowledge or intelligence. what would that mean for art, as a whole? it would be disastrous.

I'm not saying that at all, but how would it be "disastrous" (hyperbole ftw!) for art, if the artist were to help make the incomprehensible more comprehensible and help open up the understanding of their work to more people? Would it not be the exact opposite?

Take Ulysses. It's become more accessible--and thus more widely enjoyed and analyzed--by the inclusion of references to help explain the esoteric nuance throughout. Is that a bad thing? Does it somehow lessen the work? Absolutely not. If anything, it makes it more impactful by making it more accessible.

Uzique wrote:

your conception of 'reading' and 'writing' is too limited to truly discuss writing-as-art.

Get over yourself. Everything you've said so far, you've said because others have told you it is so, not because you've independently come to those conclusions.

Uzique wrote:

i think there's a lot of pseudish crap, oh hells yes... like in any discipline. the stuff that rises to the top by a concensus, though, isn't crap. the academy doesn't partake in a great act of self-delusion, congratulating itself and creating a worldwide general agreement about a bad book so that it can feel important. what a silly view. if a book is still being discussed all over the world 100 years after its initial publication... chances are that's because it has something to say that's worth reading. not because professors like to partake in a giant act of self-deceiving intellectual fellatio.

Professors have all the captive audience they need to promote their institution and profession's list of 'awesome' bad books written by the now-deceased. Those will continue to be discussed for that reason. A good old book needs no such propping-up other than to remind people not familiarized with old literature that it exists, if it hasn't carried itself like Lord of the Rings.

Uzique wrote:

ulysses doesn't have references. joyce as an artist reveled in the fact that it would take "professors years to figure out what [he] meant". we have a range of interpretive and hermeneutic approaches today, but none of them really 'nail' the text or explain it in its whole. it's a massive piece of art that defies categorisation or easy explanation. its message is ambiguous and often contradictory. its difficulty is part of its artistic technic. i don't think it has failed because only 1% of the total readerbase will grasp it entirely. in fact, i applaud it for it.

But does it relay something or doesn't it? It boils down to that wrt our debate. If it doesn't relay a story (it is fiction), then Joyce failed as an author. Fairly sure it does relay a story, it just does it in a very difficult to follow manner.

And some people may despise that style and hate the book, even though it's been enshrined in the canon of literature. And you know what? That's perfectly fine. Because that's their subjective view, based on their individual taste.

Uzique wrote:

get over myself because you're still looking at all books as an exchange of a message? no ty.

So pick up a book that's just a jumble of random letters and tell me "it's a work of art that stands on its own merit." Fuck you. It's a piece of steaming shit that serves no purpose other than a paper weight, and you know it.

Books are intended to relay information--written, visual, doesn't matter. Fiction to tell a story, non-fiction to relay data. Simple as. How it's done is the art. They still serve a function, one or the other, depending on the genre. For you to argue anything else is fucking nonsense. If the jumble of words doesn't do one of those two things in the end, then what was the point? And I point this out because you still haven't answered the question posed above, so I'll fine-tune it: What is the function of a book? "to stand alone as an autonomous work of art" is not a function.

Four years of studying literature and you haven't grasped that very basic concept? Good Lord, mummy and daddy would be pissed if they knew their money had been so utterly wasted...

DFW is very complicated in style and technique. lots of super arcane philosophy and logic, too. it's not hard to read and comprehend, though. but it's the sort of book you'll want to read more than once; it rewards repeat re-readings. big postmodernist tomes like infinite jest are kinda like literary crosswords... each time you journey through the plot again you'll notice more and more self-reflexive references and self-ironization. i do love DFW's style, though... find him absolutely hilarious.

Telling a story does not mean that you have a start, body, and definite ending. I fully realize that not all fiction is narrative in nature. Why do you assume that I think that? I'm simply making the distinction between fiction and non-fiction. Regardless, you've essentially agreed that books have a function. They don't just sit there to be stared at or to hold the table down. They relay information of some type, depending on the genre. If that information is not relayed, then there is a problem. You choose to blame the reader--which would presume a level of infallability on the part of the writer. I choose to look more toward the creator if there is a problem, as is the case in nearly every other endeavor of man.

Blaming the reader is the easy and tbh, elitist way out. To just say, "you're just not smart enough to understand what I was trying to say" is the epitome of snobbery. I'd turn it around and say, "you're just not smart enough to communicate clearly." I've got plenty of education to handle complex linguistics and literary nuance. I also know when the author is just trying too damn hard to be cute. It gets rather old, and is readily apparent when it's some young  buck trying to show how avant garde he his vs a real author who is really relaying a complicated concept in terminology that makes sense, yet references things that make you think.

so did picasso fail because he couldn't communicate his idea to the majority in a a clearer manner?

You're jumping into the middle of a conversation between adults, Macbeth. We've already been through all that. If you want to participate, go back and read the entire discussion so you don't retread the same ground Uzique and I have already gone over.

Nice picture, though.

Uzique wrote:

so did picasso fail because he couldn't communicate his idea to the majority in a a clearer manner?

You already admitted the point of a book was to relay information. Pretty sure I covered this ground, as well. Give up.

Visual art is a completely different issue because it doesn't have an underlying function. Sculpture, paintings, etc are something that can be admired "as an autonomous work of art" because of that difference.

FEOS, I don't understand your argument. As I've said at least twice, success or failure is wholly dependent on the authors intended audience. Someone like Joyce wrote for ivory tower wankers, Beck writes his books for social conservative wankers. They're both successful in their own way, not because they've achieved wide commercial success, but because they wrote books that were accepted by their audience.

If Uzique wants to be a snob about his 'elite education' let it be. Who cares? It's the only thing he's got when he walks away from college. He can sit in coffee shops and join book clubs and discuss literature. You chose a different path in life. Why are you letting it bother you so much? You're giving him precisely the reaction he wants when you get offended by the elitist attitude he chooses to display.

Jay wrote:

FEOS, I don't understand your argument. As I've said at least twice, success or failure is wholly dependent on the authors intended audience. Someone like Joyce wrote for ivory tower wankers, Beck writes his books for social conservative wankers. They're both successful in their own way, not because they've achieved wide commercial success, but because they wrote books that were accepted by their audience.

If Uzique wants to be a snob about his 'elite education' let it be. Who cares? It's the only thing he's got when he walks away from college. He can sit in coffee shops and join book clubs and discuss literature. You chose a different path in life. Why are you letting it bother you so much? You're giving him precisely the reaction he wants when you get offended by the elitist attitude he chooses to display.

I find this to be an interesting debate. I'm not offended or bothered in the least.

FEOS wrote:

Uzique wrote:

of course sculpture and visual art has a function... representational and figurative... the aesthetics of art cross mediums and modalities

It's not relaying information (like the written word). It's not providing shelter (like architecture).

What function is it performing?

It's strictly for viewing pleasure. That is not a function.

I'm not casting judgment. Perhaps that's where we've gotten sideways. I don't see performing a function as good or bad. It just is. It does, however, provide an objective measure by which to rate something that is inherently subjective by all other measures. Visual art, on the other hand, is purely subjective. I can't think of an objective measure--unless it had to meet a weight/balance requirement for some reason (but then that wouldn't be artistic in nature, imo).

visual art and sculpture actually have always had functions, mainly thriving in the medieval tradition (before the dominance of the written word and art of literature, pre-gutenberg press) to relay religious instruction and meaning through the immediacy of the visual symbol/sign. sculpture and painting in referential senses acted as simple symbols and metaphors for religious lessons. architecture was also incorporated into this basic 'function' of art's aesthetic; if you look at the construction of medieval churches and cathedrals, their structure is adorned with many carvings and signs for the entering worshipper. visual art and sculpture had a just as big -- if not bigger -- function than the written word: they communicated a theological and pedagogical message to the non-literate masses. so no, i don't agree with you... again.

most art historians would be absolutely shocked by your idea that sculpture/painting is "just for viewing pleasure". right up until the mid 19th century the charge of art's 'aestheticism' would be the biggest dismissal of a piece of art/artist possible. if a painting or sculpture DIDN'T communicate anything, and simply revelled in its own form (as opposed to its intrinsic content), then the work was deemed worthless. the victorians were the high-point of this attitude in art criticism (arguing for art's function in establishing morality and providing standards, such as beauty and truth), with popular thinkers like Ruskin turning precisely to the visual arts for an immediate redeeming 'lesson' for their (perceived) decadent and decaying societies.

Last edited by Uzique (2011-04-03 20:15:25)

as a student with an interest in modernist and postmodernist texts i just don't agree with your comment about authors being dead; as i said, classic authors aren't beatified after death. there's tons of criticism, theory and primary texts out there that all comes from contemporary and still-writing authors. huge amounts. the important thing, though, is to have the 'classical' education behind you, i.e. the older texts very much form a cultural basis. it would be pretty blind and stupid to study only the literature of the now, with no regard to the past. but as for the current authors being worthless until dead? preposterous.