Is knowledge the death of art? Or of literature?

[Mathor]

I was thinking about something today about knowledge.

A friend of mine is a huge civil war buff. He has great tastes in literature and art. But often times a movie that I find to be pretty amazing (and we have nearly the same taste), he will find to be completely awful. And he'll say "they screwed up the history. People didn't wear stuff like that in 1866" or "people didn't use phrases like that during the civil war" , etc. When a movie has one little sort of mistake, he will go from appreciating the overall piece and the art of it to saying that it was completely terrible.

So the question i'm posing is this:

Is knowledge the death of literature? Is knowledge the death of art?

One person with little knowledge on a subject might find a book to be amazing, because they do not see it's imperfections, whereas another person with more knowledge would see those imperfections and hate it.

And that's the way you judge it. I am an appreciator of music and film, so I often find a lot of holes in the critiques of literature when speaking of film. I've also found that generally my favorite film critics have very terrible taste in music. So in a way, in that case, because music is something that I do/perform on a daily basis, I am the one with knowledge. So when I hear people talk about music when they obviously know very little about it, it makes me angry. And I do not appreciate the music they would say is "very amazing". It is not that I see this is a bad thing, but I believe all art is universal, and that art can take any form the maker wants it to. There is no right and wrongs in art, so to speak. So I feel like knowledge, though it has opened my mind to different forms of art at times, it has closed my mind to things that I find to be "beneath" me so to speak. But as I grow to know more about music, and get better at it, aren't I just going to slowly depreciate more and more things seeing them as
"simple" or "boring"?

I know this is a loaded question. :blush:

[Desolation]

That's a very interesting point.

I wouldn't call knowledge the death of art/literature/film/music/etc, but it certainly can stop certain individuals from enjoying things as much as others with less knowledge on the subject. On the other hand, going to see a movie on a subject that you're well versed in can be an incredibly enjoyable experience...Even if it's done wrong, as nitpicking is(or can be) fun. Personally, I love to nitpick. Other people can't stand to watch movies with me because I point out every little flaw that I can catch.

[Manchegan]

As for as the music issue goes, you'll certainly develope higher and higher standards as you grow in profficiency, but that's not a bad thing. You will enjoy the music that meets those standards a hundred times more than the pop you enjoyed in ignorance.

As for your friend, I've always considered his type the most unbearable sort of critic. Technical accuracy is irrelevant in fiction. Letting a poor costume ruin a movie for you is childish.

To answer your question, I think knowlegde kills pop, and obsession kills one's ability to enjoy anything.

[Drkshadow03]

I know lots of people who will throw a book across the room without finishing it if the science is wrong say in a Sci-Fi novel, if the medical procedures a doctor character is talking about are wrong, if they find something racist in a story (not the whole story itself, but say a minor scene), etc. They will literally throw the book across the room and stop reading, and not pick it up again to finish. Or at least so these people claim.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I was thinking about something today about knowledge.

A friend of mine is a huge civil war buff. He has great tastes in literature and art. But often times a movie that I find to be pretty amazing (and we have nearly the same taste), he will find to be completely awful. And he'll say "they screwed up the history. People didn't wear stuff like that in 1866" or "people didn't use phrases like that during the civil war" , etc. When a movie has one little sort of mistake, he will go from appreciating the overall piece and the art of it to saying that it was completely terrible.

So the question i'm posing is this:

Is knowledge the death of literature? Is knowledge the death of art?

One person with little knowledge on a subject might find a book to be amazing, because they do not see it's imperfections, whereas another person with more knowledge would see those imperfections and hate it.

And that's the way you judge it. I am an appreciator of music and film, so I often find a lot of holes in the critiques of literature when speaking of film. I've also found that generally my favorite film critics have very terrible taste in music. So in a way, in that case, because music is something that I do/perform on a daily basis, I am the one with knowledge. So when I hear people talk about music when they obviously know very little about it, it makes me angry. And I do not appreciate the music they would say is "very amazing". It is not that I see this is a bad thing, but I believe all art is universal, and that art can take any form the maker wants it to. There is no right and wrongs in art, so to speak. So I feel like knowledge, though it has opened my mind to different forms of art at times, it has closed my mind to things that I find to be "beneath" me so to speak. But as I grow to know more about music, and get better at it, aren't I just going to slowly depreciate more and more things seeing them as
"simple" or "boring"?

I know this is a loaded question. :blush:

No, I definitely don't think knowledge is a bad thing.

Take your musical position, you will probably have an appreciation for a smaller body of work, but in the grand scheme of things that body will still be massive. As you get even better and learn more it will probably give you an even better appreciation of the masters, it will refine you tastes even more. Yes, you might not be able to listen to the vast majority of "pop" music but so be it, nothing lost there.

I don't buy the ignorance is bliss position, though there is blind pleasure for sure, I prefer the more refined appreciation of something you know something about, I think that the investment of time is more than worth it and something that is pleasurable in itself.

As an aside have you see the film Les Diaboliques? I saw it the other night and was impressed, you can tell why Hitchcock wanted to by the rights to the film.

[Adagio]

One person with little knowledge on a subject might find a book to be amazing, because they do not see it's imperfections, whereas another person with more knowledge would see those imperfections and hate it.
Isn't this the same thing as, say, you reading Howards End - watching the movie and disliking it for leaving certain parts, that were great in the novel, out? I think it is. When I have really enjoyed a novel and then watch the movie adaption I am ninety-percent of the time disappointed with the film. However, I guess in this case the matter is slightly paradoxical - what destroys what?, both the novel and film can be called art.

[Morden]

Knowledge the end of art or literature? No! On the contrary, knowledge is the beginning of creativity and appreciation in art and literature. Picasso's art works are little appreciated by people who want art to look realistic, but you probably know better than I that Picasso could do representational art before he developed his own approach. And I have recently heard it said that it must be so -- that though innovation may look like incompetence to the unknowing eye, it is actually based on strong knowledge of the fundamentals and what has gone before. The knowing eye or ear or hand is cultivated, and will only be insightful and have freshess if it is knowledgeable.

So I would exactly oppose your thesis and say that knowledge is the fundamental prerequisite for the continuing life of art and literature.

As for actual incompetence in any field, that is what will perish!

[kasie]

....As for your friend, I've always considered his type the most unbearable sort of critic. Technical accuracy is irrelevant in fiction. Letting a poor costume ruin a movie for you is childish.... obsession kills one's ability to enjoy anything.

Getting details wrong is just sloppy - an incorrect spelling would leap out of the page at you and show that someone, the author, his editor, the proofreader, had not done his job properly: the same goes for technical/historical detail. It's no good inventing credible characters, a feasible plot, setting a scene, creating a marvellous atmosphere, if you spoil it by making an elementary mistake that shows you have not done your homework. I read or rather started to read a book about Taliesin, the Dark Ages Welsh Bard - in chapter one the characters sat down to a meal of stew with potatoes. Potatoes? In ninth century Wales? I don't think so. I gave up counting the historical inaccuracies in Chapter Two and gave up the book as well - it was written with no care, often with unforgivable ignorance and deserved to be hurled across the room.

[kelby_lake]

I hate it when you are informed of something that totally changes your opinion of a work. And I think some people can be a bit too pedantic about details. It's a work of fiction! Reality doesn't always make sense.

[PeterL]

Your question is silly. Knowledge is the beginning of art.

[Emil Miller]

No, I definitely don't think knowledge is a bad thing.

Take your musical position, you will probably have an appreciation for a smaller body of work, but in the grand scheme of things that body will still be massive. As you get even better and learn more it will probably give you an even better appreciation of the masters, it will refine you tastes even more. Yes, you might not be able to listen to the vast majority of "pop" music but so be it, nothing lost there.


As an aside have you see the film Les Diaboliques? I saw it the other night and was impressed, you can tell why Hitchcock wanted to by the rights to the film.


I agree with the above, especially "nothing lost there"


It would have been interesting to see what Hitchcock would have done with it. I doubt, however, that he could have made a better job of it than Clouzot did. The brooding atmosphere at the school was almost palpable, and it was impossible to work out what was really happening until the final riveting scene. Some girls sitting behind me in the cinema actually screamed and ducked down behind their seats. Less like a horror film more like a great crime story. My film guide calls it a 'masterpiece in its own terrifying way'.

[Barbarous]

Knowledge is the beginning of art.
certainly, wouldn't more knowledge lead to more questions, hence the progression of literature or art is not stopped.

[mal4mac]

Shakespeare's history plays contain factual errors but that doesn't hinder my appreciation of them at all. And leading critics, who, no doubt, spot far more factual errors than me, seem to find it no hindrance to placing him at the centre of the canon.

Factuality surely has to be very far down in the list of things to get right in what is, after all, a work of fiction! If the work is of the highest aesthetic impact and cognitive power then it is surely wrong to be so bothered by minor factual errors.

I would direct your friend to the work of Swift and similar satirists who had a great way of mocking pedants. That might cure him. Shakespeare as well, of course, who (as always) did it best - Love's Labours Lost.

Pedant - "a person who pays more attention to formal rules and book learning than they merit" (Princeton wordnet)

[kelby_lake]

certainly, wouldn't more knowledge lead to more questions, hence the progression of literature or art is not stopped.

It's the persuit of knowledge that prompts questions, not knowledge itself.

[PeterL]

certainly, wouldn't more knowledge lead to more questions, hence the progression of literature or art is not stopped.

That's what I think.

[Mathor]

Isn't this the same thing as, say, you reading Howards End - watching the movie and disliking it for leaving certain parts, that were great in the novel, out? I think it is. When I have really enjoyed a novel and then watch the movie adaption I am ninety-percent of the time disappointed with the film. However, I guess in this case the matter is slightly paradoxical - what destroys what?, both the novel and film can be called art.

well yeah, well things that always get me is movies like the Kiera Knightley "Pride and Prejudice". That movie is near perfect as a movie, and yet it is not the best adaptation of the book. People would rather see a movie that isn't as good that follows the book.

And it's things like this, a knowledge of literature will ultimately destroy your ability to appreciate film and vice versa. In the film viewer's eye the kiera knightley movie is near perfect, from the book reader's eye not so much.

Vell Vertigo was based on a book by Barbey as well, he loved that author and also the work of the director Clouzot. Hithcock always cites Les Diaboliques as being the biggest inspiration on all of his work in "Psycho"

[Paulclem]

I've often used to read a series by an author eg King Koontz Herbert, and you begin to spot their formula. Then I find there's no point reading on.

In the 70's there seemed to be a formula for TV series - Starsky and Hutch Planet of the Apes - you began to recognise the formula for each episode and it became very unsatisfying. I now find that I can't watch much TV, just as I won't read the crapper parts of the publishing sphere. The same goes for music - who listens to the grosser examples of punk rock beyond their teens? I also applies to film.

But each time you move on you discover better stuff, which may very well limit your source of satisfactory reading etc. Clearly the artists and writers at the cutting edge of their art must push the boundaries. I noted in another post that Dumas narrative is fairly straightforward and his contemporary audience were happy with that. I doubt whether they would be able to cope with Rushdie's narrative in Midnight's Children because it has moved on so much, thank goodness.

[Mathor]

[/I][/I]


I agree with the above, especially "nothing lost there"


It would have been interesting to see what Hitchcock would have done with it. I doubt, however, that he could have made a better job of it than Clouzot did. The brooding atmosphere at the school was almost palpable, and it was impossible to work out what was really happening until the final riveting scene. Some girls sitting behind me in the cinema actually screamed and ducked down behind their seats. Less like a horror film more like a great crime story. My film guide calls it a 'masterpiece in its own terrifying way'.

I think that's up for debate. I love Clouzot. But he admittedly mentioned Hitchcock as his biggest influence.

[Paulclem]

Yes, you might not be able to listen to the vast majority of "pop" music but so be it, nothing lost there.

On an inividual level this is fine. It describes my own position on certain things. What needs to be appreciated is that developing and deepening your tastes is a process. It can result in an unecessary snobbery - I'm not accusing anyone of it here - but just stating it as a cautionary comment. Everyone has to start somewhere. Hopefully where they end up is a more sophisticated read.

[kelby_lake]

certainly, wouldn't more knowledge lead to more questions, hence the progression of literature or art is not stopped.

It is the persuit of knowledge that leads to questions, not the knowledge itself. Knowledge can limit a person when reading meaning into a text as it implies that there is only one meaning. A View From The Bridge is not merely about informing in McCarthy era America- it's about far greater things than that. Never underestimate an 'unenlightened' response.

[AmericanEagle]

As for your friend, I've always considered his type the most unbearable sort of critic. Technical accuracy is irrelevant in fiction. Letting a poor costume ruin a movie for you is childish.

I agree. Whenever I find an error in a novel/movie, I just remind myself that it's a piece of fiction.

[catatonic]

I've heard it said that Tom Clancy's appeal is the relish with which he delves in the jargon of high tech military armaments and such. In that case "getting the facts right" is everything, I suppose.

But when a writer has his protagonist own and operate a sailboat for the purpose of conveying an emotional metaphor, and when the pages devoted to sailing and its intricacies add up to a trifling fraction, then panning the book for inaccuracies of sailing nomenclature is just mean and vindictive.

[Drkshadow03]

well yeah, well things that always get me is movies like the Kiera Knightley "Pride and Prejudice". That movie is near perfect as a movie, and yet it is not the best adaptation of the book. People would rather see a movie that isn't as good that follows the book.

And it's things like this, a knowledge of literature will ultimately destroy your ability to appreciate film and vice versa. In the film viewer's eye the kiera knightley movie is near perfect, from the book reader's eye not so much.


Oh, I don't know. The English department and Film department were connected in my grad school. And most of my peers were as interested in film and taught film in their own TA-run courses as much as they were interested in studying the written word.

I think one can appreciate film and literature. In fact, many of the same techniques translates from one to the other, even there are also unique knowledge one must learn.

[stlukesguild]

Knowledge certainly closes you off to certain things that you eventually find to be mediocre or cliche or even badly done... (is that really a loss?)... but at the same time it opens you up to a world that in itself is in no way small enough for you to ever devour in whole. You speak, for example, of losing the world of popular music as you delve further and further into classical music. Is the trade-off even close? Speaking of popular music you are speaking of the achievements of that last 50-75 years... much of it rather stupid... a great percentage of it commercially driven schlock. This you compare to 100s of years of musical achievements. You are not speaking merely of Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart but you have opera, choral music, lieder, chanson, symphonies, concertos, Renaissance music, Medieval music, etc... You could spend a lifetime and just scratch the surface. Having said that... there is no no fully abandon one's earlier amors. I still listen to some rock music, to bluegrass, and to jazz. My exposure to classical music leads me to recognize that most pop music at its best is the folk music of our time (although I suspect... and many others would concur... that jazz is actually a subset of classical music... perhaps THE classical music of America) and folk music had its place in the efforts of the greatest classical composers.

Where I do agree that knowledge can be a problem is with regard to the knowledge of the specialist unable to appreciate artistic creations in which there are "flaws" only recognizable by the specialist. The historian who is not able to appreciate Gibbon's Fall of the Roman Empire because he or she cannot stomach the historical inaccuracies, misses out on the splendour of Gibbon's narrative. The botanist who dismisses Monet's paintings because of inaccuracies of the waterlilies or the trees completely misses the point. The same goes for the reader who cannot appreciate the opera or the film based upon a favorite book because the film or the opera did not follow the book religiously. A film or an opera (or a painting, etc...) is a new work of art... an individual artist's interpretation... and often this involves changes where the artist feels a need to stress this or that element... no different from the manner in which Shakespeare changed, deleted, or expanded certain aspects of the narratives that he built his dramas upon.

[Mathor]

Knowledge certainly closes you off to certain things that you eventually find to be mediocre or cliche or even badly done... (is that really a loss?)... but at the same time it opens you up to a world that in itself is in no way small enough for you to ever devour in whole. You speak, for example, of losing the world of popular music as you delve further and further into classical music. Is the trade-off even close? Speaking of popular music you are speaking of the achievements of that last 50-75 years... much of it rather stupid... a great percentage of it commercially driven schlock. This you compare to 100s of years of musical achievements. You are not speaking merely of Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart but you have opera, choral music, lieder, chanson, symphonies, concertos, Renaissance music, Medieval music, etc... You could spend a lifetime and just scratch the surface. Having said that... there is no no fully abandon one's earlier amors. I still listen to some rock music, to bluegrass, and to jazz. My exposure to classical music leads me to recognize that most pop music at its best is the folk music of our time (although I suspect... and many others would concur... that jazz is actually a subset of classical music... perhaps THE classical music of America) and folk music had its place in the efforts of the greatest classical composers.

Where I do agree that knowledge can be a problem is with regard to the knowledge of the specialist unable to appreciate artistic creations in which there are "flaws" only recognizable by the specialist. The historian who is not able to appreciate Gibbon's Fall of the Roman Empire because he or she cannot stomach the historical inaccuracies, misses out on the splendour of Gibbon's narrative. The botanist who dismisses Monet's paintings because of inaccuracies of the waterlilies or the trees completely misses the point. The same goes for the reader who cannot appreciate the opera or the film based upon a favorite book because the film or the opera did not follow the book religiously. A film or an opera (or a painting, etc...) is a new work of art... an individual artist's interpretation... and often this involves changes where the artist feels a need to stress this or that element... no different from the manner in which Shakespeare changed, deleted, or expanded certain aspects of the narratives that he built his dramas upon.

I was not speaking of popular music, or classical music, but the love for music in general. The point i am trying to make is, if conceivably, I could make music that was BETTER than Mozart, then with that experience, thinking that Mozart is a terrible musician would not be a lie. Because my skill is greater than that of a complete master, I would devalue something that should not be devalued. I believe that regardless of how much knowledge or experience we have, we should still be able to appreciate the works of other artists.

You often cite your experience as a painter when talking about the ideas of art. And how you compare your art and know what is good and bad art based on your own experience as an artist. I am speaking from my anecdotal experience as a musician.

We should not allow our experience and knowledge to depreciate art in any form: music, literature, etc, because art is limitless.

[Emil Miller]

I think that's up for debate. I love Clouzot. But he admittedly mentioned Hitchcock as his biggest influence.

You may be right, unfortunately we will never know.

[Paulclem]

I agree. Whenever I find an error in a novel/movie, I just remind myself that it's a piece of fiction.

Most of the time it's true, and only a pedant would bother with it. It's also true that some inaccuracies are purposely included. One film - I forget what the title is = had the US navy finding the enigma machine in a German submarine when in fact it was a British crew that discovered it. There was a lot of resentment voiced here in England. I can understand the reasoning though - the US mass market is more important to the movie makers than the sensibilities of the British public. Unfortunately this kind of inaccuracy passes into the common sense of history.

I use a US example purely because it's the first example that popped into my head, and not because I have an Anglo axe to grind.

[Emil Miller]

Most of the time it's true, and only a pedant would bother with it. It's also true that some inaccuracies are purposely included. One film - I forget what the title is = had the US navy finding the enigma machine in a German submarine when in fact it was a British crew that discovered it. There was a lot of resentment voiced here in England. I can understand the reasoning though - the US mass market is more important to the movie makers than the sensibilities of the British public. Unfortunately this kind of inaccuracy passes into the common sense of history.

I use a US example purely because it's the first example that popped into my head, and not because I have an Anglo axe to grind.

Not the only example of Hollywood hyperbole by a long stretch. In the film Objective, Burma! Errol Flynn can be seen fighting Japanese forces and doing his bit towards destroying Japan's putative empire despite the fact that it was British forces that actually achieved that aim.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Or in the film The Patriot...

[Virgil]

I was thinking about something today about knowledge.

A friend of mine is a huge civil war buff. He has great tastes in literature and art. But often times a movie that I find to be pretty amazing (and we have nearly the same taste), he will find to be completely awful. And he'll say "they screwed up the history. People didn't wear stuff like that in 1866" or "people didn't use phrases like that during the civil war" , etc. When a movie has one little sort of mistake, he will go from appreciating the overall piece and the art of it to saying that it was completely terrible.

So the question i'm posing is this:

Is knowledge the death of literature? Is knowledge the death of art?

One person with little knowledge on a subject might find a book to be amazing, because they do not see it's imperfections, whereas another person with more knowledge would see those imperfections and hate it.

And that's the way you judge it. I am an appreciator of music and film, so I often find a lot of holes in the critiques of literature when speaking of film. I've also found that generally my favorite film critics have very terrible taste in music. So in a way, in that case, because music is something that I do/perform on a daily basis, I am the one with knowledge. So when I hear people talk about music when they obviously know very little about it, it makes me angry. And I do not appreciate the music they would say is "very amazing". It is not that I see this is a bad thing, but I believe all art is universal, and that art can take any form the maker wants it to. There is no right and wrongs in art, so to speak. So I feel like knowledge, though it has opened my mind to different forms of art at times, it has closed my mind to things that I find to be "beneath" me so to speak. But as I grow to know more about music, and get better at it, aren't I just going to slowly depreciate more and more things seeing them as
"simple" or "boring"?

I know this is a loaded question. :blush:

Shakespeare twists many historical facts in his plays. They are not exactly historically accurate. I don't think it harmed his Histories in the least. You have to spearate history from the work of art. Never, ever assume that any movie or work is historically accurate. As a work of art, it doesn't necessarily matter as long as the writer is credible. Obviously if a civil war movie turns out the the South wins the war, then that might (and I leave the possibility that it can be handled in a way that is credible) jar the reader/viewer into scoffing at it and that might undermine the aura of reality that modern works of art require. So the creative person can take liberties with historical accuracy as long as it does not undermine realism. I hope that made sense.

[Paulclem]

if a civil war movie turns out the the South wins the war, then that might (and I leave the possibility that it can be handled in a way that is credible) jar the reader/viewer into scoffing at it and that might undermine the aura of reality that modern works of art require.

There was a lot of scoffing at the Patriot, Objective Burma and the flim with the Enigma film that still escapes me. That's the point - it turns around the historical facts to an unacceptable degree. It may still work as a film but it's, but the enormity of the misinformation will pass into the common consciousness.

[Emil Miller]

if a civil war movie turns out the the South wins the war, then that might (and I leave the possibility that it can be handled in a way that is credible) jar the reader/viewer into scoffing at it and that might undermine the aura of reality that modern works of art require.

There was a lot of scoffing at the Patriot, Objective Burma and the flim with the Enigma film that still escapes me. That's the point - it turns around the historical facts to an unacceptable degree. It may still work as a film but it's, but the enormity of the misinformation will pass into the common consciousness.

Yes, but bear in mind that the average cinema goer is virtualy semi-or downright illiterate when it comes to world history. Ii is, therefore, easy to sell them anything connected with WW11 that is questionable.

[blazeofglory]

Of course I too agree to you some extent. When we read a novel and know what will happen at last, or we go to see movies whose endings we already know we cannot enjoy them as we could without the foreknowledge of them.

But at times if we have a foreknowledge of it, you can understand the movie much more deeply.

In literature too foreknowledge does not mar your joy. Reading Tolstoy, Khalil Gibran is really entertaining and enlightening all the time.

Therefore in many cases having a foreknowledge of something helps us understand the thing more deeply.

[kelby_lake]

A foreknowledge of something does help you appreciate a film better. You can compare it with the novel and see whether it's good or not, and it makes you look at the film a different way.