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.