The purpose of literature

[cipherdecoy]

What is/are the purpose(s) of literature, or all art for that matter?

[parap]

Good question, and one that philosophers have been debating since the dawn of mankind. :)

My simplest answer would be: to make you think differently.

[wilbur lim]

Intellectual,demeanour,magnanimity and devotion would not be present in humanity if literature is absent.Books of literature is fecund to all and there is an abundance of it.For the people who wrote literature would be our daily bread.

[cipherdecoy]

My simplest answer would be: to make you think differently.

What about philosophy and history? Those can also make us think differently, without the help of literature. Or perhaps literature is just another means to stimulate flexible thinking?

[JBI]

Why live when you can kill yourself? Why eat steak and not spam? Why get an education, and not drop out of school?

There is no "use" there is merely an effect. If people wish to enrich their lives, they will pursue art, if they don't, they won't. The point of it is to create sensations.Those sensations are different depending on form and artist: no body can really go to the Sistine Chapel and not be overwhelmed by the magnitude, and power of the work. It is the same with Shakespeare, Beethoven, and Bernini.


The more I read, the more I think that the reason for such a question stems from a lack of experiencing art. One who has seen, heard, or read the best simply doesn't need to ask, and knows. Pictures do not justify art at all, and sculpture cannot really be photographed. One needs to go and see/hear/view art in order to appreciate it. Shakespeare needs to be both seen and read, Beethoven needs to be heard live, and Bernini needs to be viewed from all angles.

Anyone who has had the opportunity to do such things need not ask the question, as they already know the answer. Unfortunately, there is a problem. Money, as always. In order to see great art you must pay, and depending on where you are, the more you need to pay. This means, that art becomes elitist, which leads some to denounce it as useless, pointless, and no better than anything else.

[parap]

What about philosophy and history? Those can also make us think differently, without the help of literature. Or perhaps literature is just another means to stimulate flexible thinking?

Some of the best works of art, in my humble opinion, are those that are based on some philosophical idea and reflect a certain historical period. I don't believe art is an isolated entity. Quite the contrary. Art covers all facets of human experience: philosophy, history, science, nature, and everything in between.

[parap]

Why live when you can kill yourself? Why eat steak and not spam? Why get an education, and not drop out of school?

There is no "use" there is merely an effect. If people wish to enrich their lives, they will pursue art, if they don't, they won't. The point of it is to create sensations.Those sensations are different depending on form and artist: no body can really go to the Sistine Chapel and not be overwhelmed by the magnitude, and power of the work. It is the same with Shakespeare, Beethoven, and Bernini.


The more I read, the more I think that the reason for such a question stems from a lack of experiencing art. One who has seen, heard, or read the best simply doesn't need to ask, and knows. Pictures do not justify art at all, and sculpture cannot really be photographed. One needs to go and see/hear/view art in order to appreciate it. Shakespeare needs to be both seen and read, Beethoven needs to be heard live, and Bernini needs to be viewed from all angles.

Anyone who has had the opportunity to do such things need not ask the question, as they already know the answer. Unfortunately, there is a problem. Money, as always. In order to see great art you must pay, and depending on where you are, the more you need to pay. This means, that art becomes elitist, which leads some to denounce it as useless, pointless, and no better than anything else.

I still think it's a fair question to ask, and I think that those who claim to know the answer shouldn't shy away from giving it to those asking. ;)

[JBI]

The answer isn't an answer, but a hypothetical. What we each get out of reading is personal, but the point is we each get meaning and sensations out of it, and enjoyment. What I meant was, that art cannot be summed up as "art gives you this", because all art offers something a little bit different.

[Jozanny]

The answer isn't an answer, but a hypothetical. What we each get out of reading is personal, but the point is we each get meaning and sensations out of it, and enjoyment. What I meant was, that art cannot be summed up as "art gives you this", because all art offers something a little bit different.

I do not always agree with JBI on everything, including his notion of aesthetic relevance tied to wealth. This is a mediaeval concept easily challenged, but I do agree with his objection to the question. Humans seem to have a genetic need to express, and they have done this since early societies and cities formed. Egypt, Persia, Africa, Asia, pre-European America, Europe. All created magnificent cultures, arts, narratives, poetry, songs, music.

It is a universal human trait. Does being educated in literature and how to read it make me a better person? Not necessarily, but there have always been those driven to a refined taste, and I am a writer who counts myself among them at some level. I may never be a wine expert, for instance, but I collect the columns of wine critics, solely for my own sake, especially in a good Italian restaurant.

If literature had a purpose at all it most likely started as a biological impetus. Stories bond the members in distinct social groups, and teach the young table manners (see Levi-Strauss). On some level, narratives still function that way. Madame Bovary is a caution against too much imagination, whereas Sister Carrie could be seen as both the failure and triumph of American resilience, and so on.

Instead of asking why something is, look at what something does, and how it works.

[parap]

Instead of asking why something is, look at what something does, and how it works.

To be fair, the question didn't ask why, but what.

[papayahed]

What is/are the purpose(s) of literature, or all art for that matter?

To give us something to do between real productivity.:lol:

[PeterL]

Communication

[stlukesguild]

I do not always agree with JBI on everything, including his notion of aesthetic relevance tied to wealth.

Ooh Jozy! I wanna hear your argument on this point. There is no link between wealth and art?:confused: C'mon Jozy! "a mediaeval concept easily challenged"? This could be a fun post on its own.:nod:

[The Atheist]

Primarily, to entertain.

Without that, any mesage is going to be lost, thus a waste of carbon.

[JBI]

I do not always agree with JBI on everything, including his notion of aesthetic relevance tied to wealth.

Ooh Jozy! I wanna hear your argument on this point. There is no link between wealth and art?:confused: C'mon Jozy! "a mediaeval concept easily challenged"? This could be a fun post on its own.:nod:

I think the answer comes from Xenophon's Oeconomicus, in which he states that the sign of a successful household is its accomplishments in the arts. He states that if you are successful, you will therefore have more money to pour into arts, as apposed to fields. No doubt the rich have done something of the sort in the past - just look at Napoleon's art collection and additions to the Louvre.

[cipherdecoy]

Maybe my question should have been "What do you think is the purpose of literature?"

[Jozanny]

I do not always agree with JBI on everything, including his notion of aesthetic relevance tied to wealth.

Ooh Jozy! I wanna hear your argument on this point. There is no link between wealth and art?:confused: C'mon Jozy! "a mediaeval concept easily challenged"? This could be a fun post on its own.:nod:

Well then create the thread.:) I did not write that there isn't a link, of course there is, but if we measure aesthetic worth solely on the patronage behind it, we run into problems. Is it so easy to forget that Shakespeare's elite contemporaries, like Jonson, disdained his plays, despite how popular Shakespeare's work was with the masses who flocked to the penny seats? Jonson is of course still studied as an Elizabethan writer, but who won that argument, mon ami?

I am not saying that Shakespeare was common, either, but he certainly didn't have an education like Newton, and he wasn't an Oxford man.

[parap]

I think the answer comes from Xenophon's Oeconomicus, in which he states that the sign of a successful household is its accomplishments in the arts. He states that if you are successful, you will therefore have more money to pour into arts, as apposed to fields. No doubt the rich have done something of the sort in the past - just look at Napoleon's art collection and additions to the Louvre.

Except for visiting an opera house, perhaps, I don't see how less well-off people can't enjoy the arts. Library membership hardly costs a thing. Some of the best films are shown on TV. Museums are generally quite affordable. And even if you can't afford to go to a classical concert or opera, turn on the radio, and you'll find at least five classical channels. You don't have to own a painting, a book, or a theater to enjoy the arts.