is the writer an artist?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Albdantesque

Banned
Joined
Mar 26, 2016
Messages
142
Reaction score
6
Location
NY
I was trying to read a Noble laureate writer a few days ago, and I gave it up within one hour. The writer was jumping from the life of one character to the life of another character, from the present to the past, and so on... and the questions that passed my mind were whether this kind of writing should be called art and whether the institutions (academicians) who give the various prizes of literature bother to ask if the awarded works are artworks. (If they do not bother with these questions, are their awards given just for market and political reasons?)

In the case of poetry, plays, and non-fiction, it seems to me that it is more easy to give an answer whether they are artworks or not. To start with non-fiction, even the writers do not claim themselves to be artists. In the case of poetry, if it is too bad it means to me that something is wrong in its form and if you don't call it artwork, you don't call it poetry as well.

Something similar happens with plays. Many writers of novels and movies fail to write/complete plays and they understand that without being told from others. Like in poetry, in plays everyone knows that they should have a form that makes them plays and if a writer cannot harmonize his work with a given form, he realizes that he has failed to have a play.

However, in the case of novels and movies the answer does not come easily. The authors/producers of these works consider themselves artists. Awards, money and recognition are provided for their works, even when they lack tension, beauty, cohesion, or other elements which make something to be identified as artwork. The only element that seems to identify and unify these works is imagination. But it makes me wonder why should I call all novelists and screenwriters artists whereas all human beings possess imagination? Should not novels and movies, like poetry and plays, have some rigid elements which make them artworks? Should we call everyone an artist just because he has found a vocation and he uses some kind of imagination?

Thank you.
 

ap123

Twitching
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 4, 2007
Messages
5,648
Reaction score
1,732
Location
In the 212
I...don't understand your question. Is it that the specific work/author you tried to read didn't work for you, or you're genuinely questioning whether literature is an art form?

Creativity + Imagination + Skill = Art, imo.

I don't enjoy--or understand-- everything I've seen/read/heard identified as art, that doesn't mean it doesn't work for others.
 

Albdantesque

Banned
Joined
Mar 26, 2016
Messages
142
Reaction score
6
Location
NY
I...don't understand your question. Is it that the specific work/author you tried to read didn't work for you, or you're genuinely questioning whether literature is an art form?

Creativity + Imagination + Skill = Art, imo.

I don't enjoy--or understand-- everything I've seen/read/heard identified as art, that doesn't mean it doesn't work for others.

Let's put the question in this way: I want my childhood years become a play and I write a script of 70 pages and give it to a theater producer or playwright. Within two days the theater producer or playwright will let me know whether my written piece is a play or not, and in whatever option they take they give precise answers why my work is classified or is not classified as a play. After, I decide that my childhood years should become a novel and I write down 300 pages which I give to twenty publishers or twenty writers. Some of them call it a masterpiece and some of them say it is not a novel at all.

Can the question of whether my written piece is a novel or not be settled in the same way as to whether my work is a play (a song, and so on)? If it cannot be decided in the same way, why not? Should not novels and short stories have those features which define artworks?
 
Last edited:

Ari Meermans

MacAllister's Official Minion & Greeter
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
12,853
Reaction score
3,052
Location
Not where you last saw me.
Art, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. It's a matter of taste and understanding. In other words, it's subjective.

Let's put the question in this way: I want my childhood years become a play and I write a script of 70 pages and give it to a theater producer or playwright. Within two days the theater producer or playwright will let me know whether my written piece is a play or not, and in whatever option they take they give precise answers why my written is classified or is not classified as a play. After, I decide that my childhood years should become a novel and I write down 300 pages which I give to twenty publishers or twenty writers. Some of them call it a masterpiece and some of them say it is not a novel at all.

Can the question of whether my written piece is a novel or not be settled in the same way as to whether my work is a play (a song, and so on)? If it cannot be decided in the same way, why not? Should not novels and short stories have those features which define artworks?

If it's a book about your childhood, it's not a novel; it's a memoir. A novel is a book-length work of fiction.
 

StoryG27

Miss Behave
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 2, 2005
Messages
10,394
Reaction score
4,062
Location
TN
I had some trouble following your post. I think most awards (especially the big ones) are in some ways popularity and/or political contests. It's the way of the world. As far as who is and who is not an artist, well, that's the same as asking what is art. You can have a million answers and no answer at all. There are many artist I do not enjoy, who I don't even consider very talented, who are HUGE in their fields. Also, I know some non-fiction writers who would say they are artists, and I would agree. Art is in the eye of the beholder. In your eyes, that writer wasn't an artist. Obviously, others disagree with your opinion.

Putting rigid elements on art would stifle not improve it. You can call whomever you want an artist, and so can I, but we likely won't call the same people artists. What moves you, may not move me. There's an endless buffet of art for all tastes. That's the beauty of it.
 

Albdantesque

Banned
Joined
Mar 26, 2016
Messages
142
Reaction score
6
Location
NY
I had some trouble following your post. I think most awards (especially the big ones) are in some ways popularity and/or political contests. It's the way of the world. As far as who is and who is not an artist, well, that's the same as asking what is art. You can have a million answers and no answer at all. There are many artist I do not enjoy, who I don't even consider very talented, who are HUGE in their fields. Also, I know some non-fiction writers who would say they are artists, and I would agree. Art is in the eye of the beholder. In your eyes, that writer wasn't an artist. Obviously, others disagree with your opinion.

Putting rigid elements on art would stifle not improve it. You can call whomever you want an artist, and so can I, but we likely won't call the same people artists. What moves you, may not move me. There's an endless buffet of art for all tastes. That's the beauty of it.

You seem to underscore the fact there are artworks (especially in music and painting) that are enjoyed by everyone. Tension, especially, makes artworks discernible even among the least educated people. This is why, in my opinion, Shakespeare and Dostoevsky are kept in high regard even to this day (there is so much tension in their works and none is asked to have a lot of knowledge about things in order to understand what is going on in their works). But today, if you exclude crime stories and rose literature, the written works of many respected writers expect some kind of "knowledge" form the reader in order to be enjoyed. And there many questions raise, the biggest of all: is this piece art, is it politics, or is it some kind of "sport" to keep one's mind busy?
 
Last edited:

Curlz

cutsie-pie
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 5, 2016
Messages
2,213
Reaction score
382
Location
here
Sometimes people don't want to engage in a philosophical discussion about whether a work is "a play", or whether another one is "a novel". So when somebody brings them a novel they may say "that's not a novel" while they mean "that's not a novel we can publish". There is a definition of a novel and if your work falls under that then it's a novel. You can call it art as well if you like. That doesn't engage other people with an obligation to call it art, or anything. "Art" is a very flexible thing. Some person's art is another person's garbage. If somebody says "this is art" it doesn't mean everybody else should take notice and vice versa, if you call something art and nobody else takes notice that doesn't mean it's not art. Publishing a novel is a different beast because publishing is an industry that works for profit, markets etc. Nowadays you can self-publish and call it whatever you want and have it any way you like it. No need to look for other people's opinions. We're living in really great times for art and novels. :Thumbs:
 

Elle.

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 10, 2018
Messages
1,272
Reaction score
734
Location
United Kingdom
Nothing is ever enjoyed by everyone plus you seem to be confusing popularity with quality they do not always go hand in hand.

As someone else’s already said beauty is in the eye of the beholder so because you can see the appeal of a story doesn’t mean it’s not worthy just that it’s not for you.
 

Albdantesque

Banned
Joined
Mar 26, 2016
Messages
142
Reaction score
6
Location
NY
Nothing is ever enjoyed by everyone plus you seem to be confusing popularity with quality they do not always go hand in hand.

As someone else’s already said beauty is in the eye of the beholder so because you can see the appeal of a story doesn’t mean it’s not worthy just that it’s not for you.

Very encouraging reply for aspiring writers. In a few words it says that you should not worry if fifty theater producers say that your written piece is garbage because that does not mean that your written piece is really garbage, it simply means that you people have different tastes :)

Ok, let's say in arts everythng is a matter of taste and imagination. Can anyone explain to me why novels and movies lack all those rigid elements which define plays, songs and other artworks?

I definitely do not like all the songs I hear. I may like a song today and hate it after five years. But I can tell exactly what's good and what's wrong with that song (without needing a PHD in music). Do you think that the same ting is happening in today's literature, where every reader may have a precise saying (and the right to do it) on what's wrong with a novel?
 
Last edited:

ap123

Twitching
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 4, 2007
Messages
5,648
Reaction score
1,732
Location
In the 212
Maybe it's the chronic sleep deprivation, but I'm still not understanding your question. Are you asking what makes a novel art? What makes fiction art? What makes written work a novel?

Let's put the question in this way: I want my childhood years become a play and I write a script of 70 pages and give it to a theater producer or playwright. Within two days the theater producer or playwright will let me know whether my written piece is a play or not, and in whatever option they take they give precise answers why my work is classified or is not classified as a play. After, I decide that my childhood years should become a novel and I write down 300 pages which I give to twenty publishers or twenty writers. Some of them call it a masterpiece and some of them say it is not a novel at all.

My first thought is the same as Ari's, this would be a memoir, not a novel.

Can the question of whether my written piece is a novel or not be settled in the same way as to whether my work is a play (a song, and so on)? If it cannot be decided in the same way, why not? Should not novels and short stories have those features which define artworks?

There are defining features to a novel. It's fiction, prose, has characters and a narrative--the narrative doesn't have to be linear, there is no set number of characters required. Novels make you think, question, escape, feel connected to others, see the everyday in a new way, portray the fantastical in a way that feels real. Sounds like art to me.

You seem to underscore the fact there are artworks (especially in music and painting) that are enjoyed by everyone. Tension, especially, makes artworks discernible even among the least educated people. This is why, in my opinion, Shakespeare and Dostoevsky are kept in high regard even to this day (there is so much tension in their works and none is asked to have a lot of knowledge about things in order to understand what is going on in their works). But today, if you exclude crime stories and rose literature, the written works of many respected writers expect some kind of "knowledge" form the reader in order to be enjoyed. And there many questions raise, the biggest of all: is this piece art, is it politics, or is it some kind of "sport" to keep one's mind busy?

Shakespeare's works are plays and sonnets, not novels, no? And Shakespeare and Dostoevsky endure because they are timeless, examinations of the human condition and human connection that aren't dependent on what's happening today.

I'm not familiar with the term "rose literature", what is that?

I don't understand what you mean by requiring prior "knowledge" from the reader, could you give a specific example (keeping in mind RYFW)?

Art is political, always has been--regardless of form.

Some works are considered purely commercial, others literary, still others have features of both--all have their place and value.
 

cornflake

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
16,171
Reaction score
3,734
Very encouraging reply for aspiring writers. In a few words it says that you should not worry if fifty theater producers say that your written piece is garbage because that does not mean that your written piece is really garbage, it simply means that you people have different tastes :)

Ok, let's say in arts everythng is a matter of taste and imagination. Can anyone explain to me why novels and movies lack all those rigid elements which define plays, songs and other artworks?

I definitely do not like all the songs I hear. I may like a song today and hate it after five years. But I can tell exactly what's good and what's wrong with that song (without needing a PHD in music). Do you think that the same ting is happening in today's literature, where every reader may have a precise saying (and the right to do it) on what's wrong with a novel?

What rigid elements are in songs, plays, art, that are not in novels?

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at.
 

Albdantesque

Banned
Joined
Mar 26, 2016
Messages
142
Reaction score
6
Location
NY
Maybe it's the chronic sleep deprivation, but I'm still not understanding your question. Are you asking what makes a novel art? What makes fiction art? What makes written work a novel?



There are defining features to a novel. It's fiction, prose, has characters and a narrative--the narrative doesn't have to be linear, there is no set number of characters required. Novels make you think, question, escape, feel connected to others, see the everyday in a new way, portray the fantastical in a way that feels real. Sounds like art to me.

Good so far. You gave your answer on why they should be artwork, without referring tastes --as previous members did. It seems thus that we can build a debate on the artistic values of one or another novel without quarreling about "subjective" tastes.



Shakespeare's works are plays and sonnets, not novels, no? And Shakespeare and Dostoevsky endure because they are timeless, examinations of the human condition and human connection that aren't dependent on what's happening today.

Sure his works are no novels --but you can name whatever elements are purely artistic in his plays. When I read the New Yorker and other magazines today it is almost impossible to divide the artistic from the political element, and how much there is art or how much there is politics. With regard to the human condition, Tolstoy seems a greater psychologist to me than Shakespeare and Dostoevsky... but with the exception of the Death of Ivan Illych, I don't see any works of Tolstoy to have the same tension as those of Shakespeare and Dostoevsky (so I insist that apart from other features, tension makes the second great artists).


I don't understand what you mean by requiring prior "knowledge" from the reader, could you give a specific example (keeping in mind RYFW)?

Some American and French writers are so politically oriented, that it seems sometimes impossible to understand what is going on in their works if you have no knowledge of the intellectual life of USA or France.
 

AW Admin

Administrator
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 19, 2008
Messages
18,772
Reaction score
6,285
Should not novels and short stories have those features which define artworks?

They do. And since you want some definitions, you need to start by using the ones we have.

artwork

n. artwork
1. A work of art, such as a painting or sculpture.
2. Work in the graphic or plastic arts.
3. An illustrative and decorative element, such as a line drawing or photograph, used in a printed work, such as a book.

An artwork is not the same thing as a work of art.

work of art
n. pl. works of art
1. A product of the fine arts, especially a painting or sculpture.
2. Something likened to a fine artistic work, as by reason of beauty or craft.

A novel or a short story is not an artwork. A specific novel or short story may be described as a work of art; that would be a matter of opinion, and not a universal constant. When "work of art" is applied to a text, it is generally used metaphorically, and again, is a matter of opinion.

We have specific definition for novel and for short story.

novel
n.
1. A fictional prose narrative of considerable length, typically having a plot that is unfolded by the actions, speech, and thoughts of the characters.
2. The literary genre represented by novels.

short story
n.
A short piece of prose fiction, having few characters and aiming at unity of effect.
 
Last edited:

AW Admin

Administrator
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 19, 2008
Messages
18,772
Reaction score
6,285
Some American and French writers are so politically oriented, that it seems sometimes impossible to understand what is going on in their works if you have no knowledge of the intellectual life of USA or France.

If you don't see Shakespeare as intrinsically political in his plays, you don't know enough about Shakespeare. The very existence of the plays is instrisically political, as is their contents and their performance or lack thereof.
 

Curlz

cutsie-pie
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 5, 2016
Messages
2,213
Reaction score
382
Location
here
=tension makes the second great artists
That's a very narrow definition of art then. It's like discussing "why apples are not oranges and which one is more fruit". I'm struggling to make heads or tails of your argument on art. Writing is an art and that's not disputed. A novel is the result of writing, so it's a work of art. But you're also talking about the contents of novels and articles
:Shrug:
I don't see any works of Tolstoy to have the same tension as those of Shakespeare and Dostoevsky ....

Some American and French writers are so politically oriented, that it seems sometimes impossible to understand what is going on in their works if you have no knowledge of the intellectual life of USA or France.
And whether they have tension or are politically oriented doesn't change their artiness. So I don't follow what you mean... :e2shrug:
 

starrystorm

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 9, 2018
Messages
2,987
Reaction score
605
Age
24
My professor brought up a good definition of art:

If it's made by God (or the Big Bang) then it's nature.

If it's made by humans then it's art.

In this sense anything can be art. A pen, a bag of chips, even this keyboard I'm using.
 

Elle.

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 10, 2018
Messages
1,272
Reaction score
734
Location
United Kingdom
Very encouraging reply for aspiring writers. In a few words it says that you should not worry if fifty theater producers say that your written piece is garbage because that does not mean that your written piece is really garbage, it simply means that you people have different tastes :)

Ok, let's say in arts everythng is a matter of taste and imagination. Can anyone explain to me why novels and movies lack all those rigid elements which define plays, songs and other artworks?

I definitely do not like all the songs I hear. I may like a song today and hate it after five years. But I can tell exactly what's good and what's wrong with that song (without needing a PHD in music). Do you think that the same ting is happening in today's literature, where every reader may have a precise saying (and the right to do it) on what's wrong with a novel?

Not what I said at all but if that’s how you want to interpret it that’s fine.

What’s rigid elements? For every rule in writing there is a novel that successfully break convention. Based on your rigid elements a song like Bohemian Rhapsody should be a disaster as it broke the mould and convention in pop songs.

I can find the link but there was a list recently of the bestselling novels for the last 100 years and which novel from that years became a classic and majority of the time it was not on the bestseller list for that year.

You can tell what’s wrong for you that’s why taking the same song / play / novel one producer or agent will love and another will pass.
 

Coddiwomple

shipwrecked in antiquity
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 11, 2018
Messages
1,784
Reaction score
1,310
Location
Far away
You seem to underscore the fact there are artworks (especially in music and painting) that are enjoyed by everyone. Tension, especially, makes artworks discernible even among the least educated people. This is why, in my opinion, Shakespeare and Dostoevsky are kept in high regard even to this day (there is so much tension in their works and none is asked to have a lot of knowledge about things in order to understand what is going on in their works). But today, if you exclude crime stories and rose literature, the written works of many respected writers expect some kind of "knowledge" form the reader in order to be enjoyed. And there many questions raise, the biggest of all: is this piece art, is it politics, or is it some kind of "sport" to keep one's mind busy?

Good so far. You gave your answer on why they should be artwork, without referring tastes --as previous members did. It seems thus that we can build a debate on the artistic values of one or another novel without quarreling about "subjective" tastes.

Sure his works are no novels --but you can name whatever elements are purely artistic in his plays. When I read the New Yorker and other magazines today it is almost impossible to divide the artistic from the political element, and how much there is art or how much there is politics. With regard to the human condition, Tolstoy seems a greater psychologist to me than Shakespeare and Dostoevsky... but with the exception of the Death of Ivan Illych, I don't see any works of Tolstoy to have the same tension as those of Shakespeare and Dostoevsky (so I insist that apart from other features, tension makes the second great artists).

Some American and French writers are so politically oriented, that it seems sometimes impossible to understand what is going on in their works if you have no knowledge of the intellectual life of USA or France.

I’m confused, too. Why would you want to divorce the appreciation of art from the context of its creation –— historical, political, or cultural? No art is created in a vacuum. I don’t need a background in art history to appreciate Thomas Cole’s The Oxbow, but learning about the artist, the historical circumstances of the painting’s creation, the methods Cole used to produce it -- all of those things add immensely to my enjoyment of the work. Otherwise it’s just looking a pretty picture. There's nothing wrong with enjoying a pretty picture, but there's also nothing wrong with examining works at deeper levels -- or even acknowledging that some works can't be fully appreciated without an understanding of historical or political context. I really don’t understand the question, here.
 

ironmikezero

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 8, 2011
Messages
1,737
Reaction score
426
Location
Haunted Louisiana
Art is imagination expressed. Appreciation is relative to the beholder. Determining the rationale of the beholder can become a rabbit hole.
 

Albdantesque

Banned
Joined
Mar 26, 2016
Messages
142
Reaction score
6
Location
NY
I’m confused, too. Why would you want to divorce the appreciation of art from the context of its creation –— historical, political, or cultural? No art is created in a vacuum. I don’t need a background in art history to appreciate Thomas Cole’s The Oxbow, but learning about the artist, the historical circumstances of the painting’s creation, the methods Cole used to produce it -- all of those things add immensely to my enjoyment of the work. .

No problem with what you say, but most of the debates about literature (and movies) today seem to focus on their message rather on the the means, tools, motif one uses in order to write a novel.

Writing may be a kind of art as many here are arguing, but it seems also that we have reached an era where it is hard to build a debate on who among the novelists controls these artistic means better than others --because the debate nowadays focuses mostly on the message of the novel, not on its artistic quality.

When you publish a novel many will ask "what it says?", but very few will ask "how is it written?, do you enjoy reading it?, can you finish reading it within a week?"
 
Last edited:

ap123

Twitching
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 4, 2007
Messages
5,648
Reaction score
1,732
Location
In the 212
No problem with what you say, but most of the debates about literature (and movies) today seem to focus on their message rather on the the means, tools, motif one uses in order to write a novel.

Writing may be a kind of art as many here are arguing, but it seems also that we have reached an era where it is hard to build a debate on who among the novelists controls these artistic means better than others --because the debate nowadays focuses mostly on the message of the novel, not on its artistic quality.

When you publish a novel many will ask "what it says?", but very few will ask "how is it written?, do you enjoy reading it?, can you finish reading it within a week?"

I will likely bow out after this because I suspect you're trolling, but on the assumption of good intentions, I will respond once more.

Writing--all writing--is about communication, and nothing can be communicated without some level of clarity, whether prose is poetic or blunt. Here, in your OP and subsequent responses, there is a lack of clarity.

The only one taking the position here that creative writing is *not* an art is you.

"who among the novelists controls these artistic means" is a phrase that makes no sense to me.

How a novel is written and what it has to say is and should be woven together. Prose with no substance has no purpose, not even when the goal is light entertainment.

Can you finish reading it within a week? means nothing. There are very few novels I can't read within a day, almost none within 3 days. This has to do with my reading habits and comprehension skills, nothing to do with the quality of a novel.
 

Curlz

cutsie-pie
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 5, 2016
Messages
2,213
Reaction score
382
Location
here
most of the debates about literature (and movies) today seem to focus on their message rather on the the means, tools, motif one uses in order to write a novel.
There's been a long standing debate of whether art, or books, or movies etc should have a message or whether there's no need for a message at all. So if you're seeing only one side of the argument, it may be because you're ignoring the other side.
 

AW Admin

Administrator
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 19, 2008
Messages
18,772
Reaction score
6,285
No problem with what you say, but most of the debates about literature (and movies) today seem to focus on their message rather on the the means, tools, motif one uses in order to write a novel.

That rather depends on what you're reading; that's not at all my experience.

Writing may be a kind of art as many here are arguing, but it seems also that we have reached an era where it is hard to build a debate on who among the novelists controls these artistic means better than others --because the debate nowadays focuses mostly on the message of the novel, not on its artistic quality.

When you publish a novel many will ask "what it says?", but very few will ask "how is it written?, do you enjoy reading it?, can you finish reading it within a week?"

Again, that's a sweeping generalization. You might try looking at literary criticism rather than reviews; a review is intended to tell a prospective reader enough about a book for prospective reader to determine whether or not to read the book. Reviews are not the same as literary analysis or criticism.
 

JJ Litke

People are not wearing enough hats
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 8, 2013
Messages
7,997
Reaction score
4,475
Location
Austin
Website
www.jjlitke.com
I will likely bow out after this because I suspect you're trolling, but on the assumption of good intentions, I will respond once more.

Writing--all writing--is about communication, and nothing can be communicated without some level of clarity, whether prose is poetic or blunt. Here, in your OP and subsequent responses, there is a lack of clarity.

The only one taking the position here that creative writing is *not* an art is you.

"who among the novelists controls these artistic means" is a phrase that makes no sense to me.

How a novel is written and what it has to say is and should be woven together. Prose with no substance has no purpose, not even when the goal is light entertainment.

Can you finish reading it within a week? means nothing. There are very few novels I can't read within a day, almost none within 3 days. This has to do with my reading habits and comprehension skills, nothing to do with the quality of a novel.

+1 to this, especially the trolling part.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.