What is literature?

[Scheherazade]

Following the recent discussions in the Stephen King thread, I feel it might be a good idea to discuss what literature means for us.

What is your definition of literature?

[Stewed]

I once took a philosophy class where we went over this for weeks. I got nowhere, and I didn't really impress anyone with my answers. I think I use a going theory of what's what, but it's so undefined that it's almost unconscious. I think my rational definition of literature would be far, far more inclusive than the definition I operate with.

[Desolation]

Literature to me is truth that was never given the proper chance to be reality.

[PeterL]

Literature is anything that is written, nothing more and nothing less.

[Charles Darnay]

Literature to me is truth that was never given the proper chance to be reality.

I really like that definition.
_________________________________

Literature is an expression of "what it means to be human" put into words.

[Stewed]

Me too.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

If you all really like Desolation's definition, maybe you could enlighten me by explaining what in the hell it means.

[Mr.lucifer]

I'm going with PeterL's definition.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I like PeterL's, too, because I can call this literature:

POOP!

I'm a writer!

[JCamilo]

But then,
you used sarcasm. You manipulated words to convey a message. You did with more words a haiku would use.

I guess you wrote.

So, you are a writer.

[cafolini]

Literature is anything that is written, nothing more and nothing less.

Agree

[Stewed]

But maybe not a good writer.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

But then,
you used sarcasm. You manipulated words to convey a message. You did with more words a haiku would use.

I guess you wrote.

So, you are a writer.


But maybe not a good writer.

:lol: I needed a smile. :)

[Charles Darnay]

If you all really like Desolation's definition, maybe you could enlighten me by explaining what in the hell it means.

Sorry I'm a bit late on this one.....


The definition is good because it sets forth an interesting criterion. PeterL's definition - while not wholly bad - I find too broad. Desolation's suggests literature as an art form (art as truth but not reality). The one thing I suppose is that it implies that literature=fiction.....which I am a bit on the fence on, I admit.

[JCamilo]

Does he suggest it is as art? But then, he would say that art is something that is not truth and unreal? What it means? That he is going by the platonic motto that art is a lie?

And Literature was art? So Gibbons, Plato, Confucio, Francis Bacon, Marco Polo, did not wrote literature?

And the definition is too broad? Since when a definition is bad because it is broad and not because it is true? Just like, what is world? The planet we live in. Oh, too broad... World is the feeling we have for place we live?

[Charles Darnay]

Does he suggest it is as art? But then, he would say that art is something that is not truth and unreal? What it means? That he is going by the platonic motto that art is a lie?

And Literature was art? So Gibbons, Plato, Confucio, Francis Bacon, Marco Polo, did not wrote literature?

And the definition is too broad? Since when a definition is bad because it is broad and not because it is true? Just like, what is world? The planet we live in. Oh, too broad... World is the feeling we have for place we live?

To take your last point first - when trying to establish an argument, being too broad can be an issue (cf. Mundi's poop comment above) - in order to establish a sophisticated definition, there must be some form of criteria that zeros in on the issue. "What is the world=the planet we live in" is only part of a good definition. Why is space not part of the world? Do astronauts literary go "out of this world?" I would argue that space is part of the world - but in order to solidify this, a set of criteria must be set down.

To your point:
"And Literature was art? So Gibbons, Plato, Confucio, Francis Bacon, Marco Polo, did not wrote literature? "

I admitted I was on the fence on this issue. Take Plato for example. One argument can be that Plato's work is a form of art, and thus literature. Another argument is Plato's work is not art but still literature, and then Plato's work is not art and not literature. I don't have a good answer to this issue (hence being on the fence). I were to force myself to answer I would say that yes, literature=art, and Plato is literature (art), but Gibbons for example is history, which I tend to set apart from literature. (I love Gibbons nonetheless).

[Desolation]

Well, I was mostly talking about fiction as literature, because that's my main interest. I like to go by the Hemingway philosophy that good writing is honest writing (and by the same token, good art is honest art). For non-fiction (including philosophy) and poetry, that's all you need to say. But, it presents a problem for fiction in that most novels come from the imagination and aren't necessarily true stories.

So, my definition applies to anything that comes from the imagination, and a justification for the honesty of prose writing even when the story being told isn't something that happened in reality.

I hope that clears it up a bit.

[Mr.lucifer]

The problem I find with the definition of great writing=literature and anything else isn't literature is like saying great films=cinema, or great composings= music.

[PeterL]

Sorry I'm a bit late on this one.....


The definition is good because it sets forth an interesting criterion. PeterL's definition - while not wholly bad - I find too broad. Desolation's suggests literature as an art form (art as truth but not reality). The one thing I suppose is that it implies that literature=fiction.....which I am a bit on the fence on, I admit.

If you want a narrower definition, then call the literature by what it is: marketting literature, fiction literature, academic literature, or whatever. Literature without a modifier is a very broad matter.

[KCurtis]

What does the dictionary say?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

1 written works, esp. those considered of superior or lasting artistic merit : a great work of literature.
• books and writings published on a particular subject : the literature on environmental epidemiology.
• the writings of a country or period : early French literature.
• leaflets and other printed matter used to advertise products or give advice.
2 the production or profession of writing.

[Scheherazade]

Sorry to interrupt this discussion but how about the oral literature?

Should we ignore anything that is not written?

[PeterL]

Sorry to interrupt this discussion but how about the oral literature?

Should we ignore anything that is not written?

Oral stories, poetry, etc. are not written, so they are not literature, until someone writes them down.

[Charles Darnay]

Oral stories, poetry, etc. are not written, so they are not literature, until someone writes them down.

Agreed

[JCamilo]

Sorry to interrupt this discussion but how about the oral literature?

Should we ignore anything that is not written?

Today, many students or praticers of oral storytelling avoid the term. But it is hard to change, because in the end means "writen letter said"... but since nobody produced a replacing term, "Oral literature" is used as something on its own.

The reason is the term somehow seems to invert the order of story (believe of not, the idea orality predates great literature is rather recent), so it is like Brazil start to call Portugal, European Brazil.


Charles Darnay:


To take your last point first - when trying to establish an argument, being too broad can be an issue (cf. Mundi's poop comment above) - in order to establish a sophisticated definition, there must be some form of criteria that zeros in on the issue. "What is the world=the planet we live in" is only part of a good definition. Why is space not part of the world? Do astronauts literary go "out of this world?" I would argue that space is part of the world - but in order to solidify this, a set of criteria must be set down.

Your example is not good. Space is not planet (by simple definition of planet). And a broad definition is necessary for a broad thing.


To your point:
"And Literature was art? So Gibbons, Plato, Confucio, Francis Bacon, Marco Polo, did not wrote literature? "

I admitted I was on the fence on this issue. Take Plato for example. One argument can be that Plato's work is a form of art, and thus literature. Another argument is Plato's work is not art but still literature, and then Plato's work is not art and not literature. I don't have a good answer to this issue (hence being on the fence). I were to force myself to answer I would say that yes, literature=art, and Plato is literature (art), but Gibbons for example is history, which I tend to set apart from literature. (I love Gibbons nonetheless).

I am questioning the critery, so I do not need to give answers, but anyways: if you had answer this would imply the definition given would answer it. If it does not then I did what intended: showed you are changing a broad definition for a weak definition.

[Stewed]

There are an awful lot of people out there whose working definition of "literature" includes the idea of lasting merit and artistic intent; and those people understand each other: their successful use of literature, narrowly defined, is an objective fact. Assuming that meaning resides in reciprocally understood speech, to be absolutely, scientifically right about "literature's" broad meaning you'd have to kill everyone who uses the narrow meaning. I mean, how many people signed up here to discuss toaster-oven instructions and Jehova's Witness pamphlets?

[kevinthediltz]

Literature, in my opinion, is any jumble of words, spoken or otherwise, that have touched someone in someway. I limit it to words that have struck me a certain way or another, obviously. But who are we to define what literature means to someone else?

[JCamilo]

You dont have to kill every narrow at all: you just know when someone mentions like Desolation his narrow definition only work for specific works and not all literature, We do not kill each other and we sit in the same table.

To understand someone you just need a hint not a dictionary, as any jokes about relationships would exemplify quite well.

[kevinthediltz]

Oral stories, poetry, etc. are not written, so they are not literature, until someone writes them down.

Homer's Odyssey was only a spoken story until long after his death... And that is one of the greatest stories ever told...

[anishastrologer]

Literature is anything that is written, nothing more and nothing less.

I agree literature is anything that is written form, anything more or anything less is not literature.

[stlukesguild]

Literature is anything that is written, nothing more and nothing less.

This is far too broad of a definition. It would suggest that the phone book, my auto insurance policy, the science text book, the instruction manual for putting together the book shelf I bought, the scrolling ticker-tape of stock quotes at the bottom of the screen on CNN, the list of ingredients on the back of a box of Lucky Charms, the label on my latest CD, etc... are all literature.

Does he (Desolation) suggest it (literature) is as art? But then, he would say that art is something that is not truth and unreal? What it means? That he is going by the platonic motto that art is a lie?

And Literature was art? So Gibbons, Plato, Confucio, Francis Bacon, Marco Polo, did not wrote literature?

I would largely agree with a definition of literature that defines it as writing as Art (or artful writing). DeQuincy defined a dichotomy of the "literature of knowledge" vs the "literature of power". Under the "literature of knowledge" he included all that was written solely to determinate information... which would include the science text book, the insurance policy, a cookbook, or the printed buttons ("Up" and "Down") in the elevator. "What do you learn from Paradise Lost? DeQuincy asks. "Nothing at all. What do you learn from a cookery book? Something new; something you did not know before in every paragraph; but would you therefore put the wretched cookery book (in the same category) as the divine poem?"

DeQuincy continues, "The very highest book that has ever existed in the "literature of knowledge" is but a provisional work... let it's teaching be only partially revised; let it be expanded, Nay! even let it's teaching be placed in a better order- and instantly, it is superseded, whereas the feeblest works of the "literature of power" (Art) survive as finished and unalterable... A good steam engine is properly superseded by a better; but a lovely pastoral valley is not superseded by a "better", nor a statue of Praxiteles by a statue of Michelangelo.

In other words, art is not the product of evolution. The main point, however, is that DeQuincy suggests a clear difference between writing to convey ideas or knowledge... and writing as ART. It would seem to me that when we are speaking of "Literature" we are speaking of writing as ART or "Artful writing" just as when we speak of painting as a fine art, we are speaking of painting as ART.

So Gibbons, Plato, Confucio, Francis Bacon, Marco Polo, did not write literature?

I would in no way suggest such. Literature is not limited to a single or limit set of writing genre. Literature does not include only poetry, short stories, novels, theater etc... but most certainly could include philosophy, theology, history, art criticism, literary criticism, biography, journals, etc... I think it is a huge misunderstanding to presume that a well-written history such as Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire or an autobiographical essay such as DeQuincy's Confessions of an English Opium Addict do not employ as great a degree of art... artful writing... as any poem or novel.

The problem I find with the definition of great writing=literature and anything else isn't literature is like saying great films=cinema, or great composings= music.

I don't think the term "literature" presumes a certain level of quality any more than the terms "music" or "art"... although certainly some have employed the term in such a manner. To my mind literature is writing as art... but we all know that there is good art and bad art. I think that if we are denoting literature of a certain quality, we need to simply employ a modifier: "classic literature" or "great literature" just as we might employ similar terms when speaking of art and music.

[PeterL]

This is far too broad of a definition. It would suggest that the phone book, my auto insurance policy, the science text book, the instruction manual for putting together the book shelf I bought, the scrolling ticker-tape of stock quotes at the bottom of the screen on CNN, the list of ingredients on the back of a box of Lucky Charms, the label on my latest CD, etc... are all literature.


So when you use a word it means what you want it to mean regardless of commonly understood definitions.
O.K. That's your business, but you shouldn't be surprised if other people seems to get a meaning from your words that doesn't seem to be what you intended.



I don't think the term "literature" presumes a certain level of quality any more than the terms "music" or "art"... although certainly some have employed the term in such a manner. To my mind literature is writing as art... but we all know that there is good art and bad art. I think that if we are denoting literature of a certain quality, we need to simply employ a modifier: "classic literature" or "great literature" just as we might employ similar terms when speaking of art and music.

So you changed your mind and now agree that literature needs to be modified to mean something other than writing in general.


Homer's Odyssey was only a spoken story until long after his death... And that is one of the greatest stories ever told...

The Odyssey was written down a long time ago, so it became literature. But you are completely correct that it was composed orally, so Homer dod not compose it as literature but as oral poetry.

[kevinthediltz]

The Odyssey was written down a long time ago, so it became literature. But you are completely correct that it was composed orally, so Homer dod not compose it as literature but as oral poetry.

Very true, so.... Was it not literature before it was written down? Or simply another story that had no worth?

[stlukesguild]

So when you use a word it means what you want it to mean regardless of commonly understood definitions.
O.K. That's your business, but you shouldn't be surprised if other people seems to get a meaning from your words that doesn't seem to be what you intended.

Peter, I'm sorry that my definition doesn't suit you, but yours isn't exactly the accepted notion of what literature is either. I can't imagine too many agreeing that the phone book, an instruction manual, the list of ingredients on a box of cereal or the print on a billboard amounts to literature. In case you haven't noticed, there is also another term: writing which is largely assumed to include all that is written. Perhaps we can just do away with that because Peter has spoken.

So you changed your mind and now agree that literature needs to be modified to mean something other than writing in general.

Your comments might be more relevant if you first work on your reading comprehension. I stated that the term "literature" does not denote a judgment in value. It presumes a genre: creative or artistic writing... but there is good and bad art. Member Mr. Lucifer was taken aback at the usage of the term "literature" as term which suggests a certain value: writing as great art. I suggested the use of a modifier such as "great" or "classic". If you care to browse through your dictionary and encyclopedia definitions you will discover that the definitions of "literature" vary... and a number refer to writing as art or artistic writing. When most of us speak of literature here, we are quite likely not referring to written texts such as the phone book or the list of ingredients and I doubt you will be studying such if you major in Literature, Comparative Literature or English Literature. But please do carry on .

The Odyssey was written down a long time ago, so it became literature. But you are completely correct that it was composed orally, so Homer dod not compose it as literature but as oral poetry.

Semantic Onanism.:shocked:

[Charles Darnay]

Very true, so.... Was it not literature before it was written down? Or simply another story that had no worth?

I don't think worth enters into it. The odyssey was a song more than anything, and more a theatric piece until it was written down. Regardless it was immensely popular at all times


So when you use a word it means what you want it to mean regardless of commonly understood definitions.
O.K. That's your business, but you shouldn't be surprised if other people seems to get a meaning from your words that doesn't seem to be what you intended.

Peter, I'm sorry that my definition doesn't suit you, but yours isn't exactly the accepted notion of what literature is either. I can't imagine too many agreeing that the phone book, an instruction manual, the list of ingredients on a box of cereal or the print on a billboard amounts to literature. In case you haven't noticed, there is also another term: writing which is largely assumed to include all that is written. Perhaps we can just do away with that because Peter has spoken.

So you changed your mind and now agree that literature needs to be modified to mean something other than writing in general.

Your comments might be more relevant if you first work on your reading comprehension. I stated that the term "literature" does not denote a judgment in value. It presumes a genre: creative or artistic writing... but there is good and bad art. Member Mr. Lucifer was taken aback at the usage of the term "literature" as term which suggests a certain value: writing as great art. I suggested the use of a modifier such as "great" or "classic". If you care to browse through your dictionary and encyclopedia definitions you will discover that the definitions of "literature" vary... and a number refer to writing as art or artistic writing. When most of us speak of literature here, we are quite likely not referring to written texts such as the phone book or the list of ingredients and I doubt you will be studying such if you major in Literature, Comparative Literature or English Literature. But please do carry on .

The Odyssey was written down a long time ago, so it became literature. But you are completely correct that it was composed orally, so Homer dod not compose it as literature but as oral poetry.

Semantic Onanism.:shocked:

A debate about accepted definitions isn't really necessary. There would be no thread if we had a definition. The point is to pull apart meanings in order to find some truth. Everything Beatty hates about books

[JCamilo]

Literature is anything that is written, nothing more and nothing less.

This is far too broad of a definition. It would suggest that the phone book, my auto insurance policy, the science text book, the instruction manual for putting together the book shelf I bought, the scrolling ticker-tape of stock quotes at the bottom of the screen on CNN, the list of ingredients on the back of a box of Lucky Charms, the label on my latest CD, etc... are all literature.

But a broad definition is necessary for a broader subject. Take the phone book, it is but a list. A list is just a form of textual organization. We find it in all forms and varieties: dictionaries, the encyclopedias, genealogies, etc. I would not suggest any of those lists were not literature, or that when an author starts listing he stopped with literature.

The documents, are them not literature? Yet, if I take a contract and use to build the chapter of a book (the considerable information in a contract may build up a character) it ceases to be "not literature" to be?

The science text book is even easy. Scientific Literature is even called scientific literature and a borgesian like you wont dismiss scientific works so easily, would you? They, even when their subject go down to drain of knowledge, and the science becames fantasy, still the same text. Our relation to the object is different, but the object is the same.

I would say random typing wont go well, because it does not form a text, which is not just the graphic printing, but the formation of a sense. The label usually is the combination between image and writting, something Warhol would easily play about...

Then you would say: Yes, but Warhol stuff was a play with the context of the production and relation with those products. He took things without artistic meaning and took to an artistic context to challenge the notions about art, so all he would be doing was taking a text from one context (ha) to another. But this would be only strange if we narrow literature to all artistic form of writing.


Does he (Desolation) suggest it (literature) is as art? But then, he would say that art is something that is not truth and unreal? What it means? That he is going by the platonic motto that art is a lie?

And Literature was art? So Gibbons, Plato, Confucio, Francis Bacon, Marco Polo, did not wrote literature?

I would largely agree with a definition of literature that defines it as writing as Art (or artful writing). DeQuincy defined a dichotomy of the "literature of knowledge" vs the "literature of power". Under the "literature of knowledge" he included all that was written solely to determinate information... which would include the science text book, the insurance policy, a cookbook, or the printed buttons ("Up" and "Down") in the elevator. "What do you learn from Paradise Lost? DeQuincy asks. "Nothing at all. What do you learn from a cookery book? Something new; something you did not know before in every paragraph; but would you therefore put the wretched cookery book (in the same category) as the divine poem?"

DeQuincy continues, "The very highest book that has ever existed in the "literature of knowledge" is but a provisional work... let it's teaching be only partially revised; let it be expanded, Nay! even let it's teaching be placed in a better order- and instantly, it is superseded, whereas the feeblest works of the "literature of power" (Art) survive as finished and unalterable... A good steam engine is properly superseded by a better; but a lovely pastoral valley is not superseded by a "better", nor a statue of Praxiteles by a statue of Michelangelo.

In other words, art is not the product of evolution. The main point, however, is that DeQuincy suggests a clear difference between writing to convey ideas or knowledge... and writing as ART. It would seem to me that when we are speaking of "Literature" we are speaking of writing as ART or "Artful writing" just as when we speak of painting as a fine art, we are speaking of painting as ART.

That goes for Quincey who said many things. But Quincey himself accept that informative literature is literature, notheless. His distinction is not longer what is the object, but the use an quality of the object itself.

Of course, any educated conversation can narrow down the path to know that if you say "oh, the phone list is no literature" , you are working with a narrow definition suited to a higher purpose. But the path is both ways, after all Quincey never considered his Confession to be anything but knowledge and today, you know it goes as artistic, as Quincey is one of the finest examples of romantic style, not just as knowledge.

His definition is of course romantic, a classicist would say that style and information walk together, in fact, information would even be style. So, you could easily have knowledge and art together.

I would point also that having stylized text is not a domain of art only. Law texts, scientific text, etc. all obey norms of style.


So Gibbons, Plato, Confucio, Francis Bacon, Marco Polo, did not write literature?

I would in no way suggest such. Literature is not limited to a single or limit set of writing genre. Literature does not include only poetry, short stories, novels, theater etc... but most certainly could include philosophy, theology, history, art criticism, literary criticism, biography, journals, etc... I think it is a huge misunderstanding to presume that a well-written history such as Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire or an autobiographical essay such as DeQuincy's Confessions of an English Opium Addict do not employ as great a degree of art... artful writing... as any poem or novel.

Of course, Gibbon style goes as one of the main classicist styles. But the main point is: he is literature of knowledge. Many historians have writen with this style (of course, Gibbon is something else), and only Gibbon classical status set him apart of similar books but not in quality? But the deffinition of literature cannt be critical analyse (even because to have a critical idea , you must have a critery that would determine it was literature in first place), just a definition...

Obviously not all pictures, drawnings, whistling is art, so all literature would be too? Specially considering status like art is given according to the context, not the usefullness of an object...

[mal4mac]

There are an awful lot of people out there whose working definition of "literature" includes the idea of lasting merit and artistic intent; and those people understand each other: their successful use of literature, narrowly defined, is an objective fact.

No they don't, an no it isn't.

Just look at the Stephen King thread! There's no agreement there on whether King is literature or not - so I'm warming to the idea of calling any spoken or written utterance literature - just that *some people* think certain pieces of literature are bad literature. But they can't bring in any objective standared to support that estimate. In the end it comes down to perceived aesthetic value, that is, pure pleasure. and we're all different when it comes to that. Literature isn't physics, but physics is literature (?) :brickwall

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

No they don't, an no it isn't.

Just look at the Stephen King thread! There's no agreement there on whether King is literature or not - so I'm warming to the idea of calling any spoken or written utterance literature - just that *some people* think certain pieces of literature are bad literature. But they can't bring in any objective standared to support that estimate. In the end it comes down to perceived aesthetic value, that is, pure pleasure. and we're all different when it comes to that. Literature isn't physics, but physics is literature (?) :brickwall
The only reason King isn't agreed upon is because you don't think he belongs in the category of "literature." Virtually everyone else seems to be in agreement that King is, indeed, literature.

Personally, literature, to me (as that will always be what these discussions come down to, personal definitions, as a blanket definition will never be able to be agreed upon), is something written with at least partly an artistic purpose. Text books--not literature. Autobiographies--is literature.

[JCamilo]

But why autobiographies are written with artistic purpose? Or text books dont? This is making you go for a art defintion centered on object and intention, modern art showed this is quite not true. It is not just pop art or Duchamps, it is for example pointing that the book is just an object and the aesthetic fact happens only when the book is written.

You must just consider your definition: they allow St.Agostyne, Cicero, Herodothus, The Encyclopedia, Large portions of Bible, The egyptian book of Dead, Confucious, Marco Polo, Francis Bacon, Plato, Gibon, Anne Frank, etc to be literature? If you do, you will see we cann't claim they were written with artistic purpose.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Most textbooks I've read aren't very artistic, if at all. Plus, philosophical texts do not equal text books. I'm talking about the dull data-dumps that's given to high-school students. I wouldn't even clump my Norton Anthology of Literary Theory with those. This is just my personal definition. And I said partly with an artistic purpose.

[stlukesguild]

Duchamp toyed with the question of when something becomes ART. Is an object (such as a urinal) ART because the individual behind the work claims to be an artist? Does it become ART because of the context? Is the intent enough to make something ART? Warhol is seen to have taken this further, where the mass-produced item not even touched by the artist becomes ART (rather like the fashion industry) simply because it is attached with a name brand ("Warhol") and placed in the context of "high art". Of course the very idea was far beyond Warhol... one of the stupidest "artists" ever... but is rather owed almost wholly to the marketing genius of his dealer, Leo Castelli.

Personally, I find the debate as to "What is ART?" to be little more than mental masturbation employed by critics and artists who wouldn't recognize Art if it bit them in the ***. The popular notion in academia is that everything is art. Carried over to "literature"... if we assume literature is writing as art, this results in a definition in which every written thing is literature Of course this very idea came about post-1960s as a result of professors who knew more about hallucinogenics than the did about art or literature, let alone common sense.

The reality is that everything is not art. The very existence of the term "art" presumes it denotes something unique... something that can be recognized as separate from everything... or from that which is not art. Ultimately it is not the artist who defines art. The prepubescent scrawling in his of her journal is not creating art (unless she is Anne Frank). Neither is it the intention that is at all relevant. The cave painters and the scribes illuminating medieval manuscripts and the certain mental patient (Adolf Wolfli) obsessively compiling 1000 of pages of drawings, text, and music quite like never thought of what they had created as ART or themselves as ARTISTS... but they most certainly were artists... because they are recognized as such by those whose opinions matter: subsequent art historians, artists, art lovers, etc... Ultimately, it is the audience who defines art.

Robert Hughes has pointed out that the conceptual strain in art was intended to destroy the separation between art and reality. The end result, however, has been an art even more wholly dependent upon the context and the audience as cognoscenti. Hughes continues to point out that Donald Judd created sculpture out of nothing more than a pile of mass-produced bricks. Taken from their context in the museum or gallery and placed out in the parking-lot, they become nothing more than construction material. Take a Rodin or Michelangelo sculpture and place them in the same parking lot and they remain clearly ART.

Hughes' scenario has been reenacted any number of time in the real "art world". A cleaning lady at a German museum threw away a blob of lard that was supposedly an artistic masterwork by Joseph Beuys. Clearly, to her, it was not art. Another cleaning crew dispensed with a Damien Hirst piece comprised of stale pizza, empty beer bottles, cigarette butts, etc... Again, the "audience" decided the work was not art.

If "Literature" is "writing as art" or "artful writing" it would seem that the literary audience is the one who will define what is or is not "literature"... what does or does not quality as literary art. Individuals can engage all they wish in the debates as to whether the grocery list, the ingredients printed on the back of a box of Lucky Charms, or the phone book amount to "literature" according to some broad concept that J.L. Borges might have enjoyed playing with. But ultimately, all of this is but mental Onanism and a waste of time. We are not likely to engage in many discussions upon the literary merits of my grocery list, take a Masters degree in the literature of comparative cereal box ingredients, or find a body of critical studies upon the epic of the New York City phone book... although once again... I can imagine Borges actually making a work of literature out of just such an idea.

[Sancho]

If asked to define literature:

perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it,…*

*I ripped that off from U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart. It’s from a First Amendment (free speech) case which dealt with obscenity and the definition of pornography - not literature.

But speaking of pornography, Luke, I had to look up Onanism

[JCamilo]

But then Stlukes, all of those argument are only true if the assumption literature equate arts; then the anyone can say anything is art is relevant because claiming anything writen is literature would imply anything is art. And I dont claim such thing. Or claiming what is literature - meaning what is good - is on the taste of audience, because they would reckonize as art.

But this is simple false - Literature was written text certainly predates modernist and lsd - Forensics literature is much older and say again: it is needed a stretch of good taste to claim Plato, Gibon, Confusions, St.Agostyne produced art and not qualified texts. (In the end art is indeed unique, so it cann't be all good texts. Or even all bad texts, as artists will fail).

You know well that for quite while even the idea "I am an artist" or "i am producing art" wasnt commun even among those we do not dare to deny to call artists. Literature wasn't certainly in medieval mind anything near as artistic writing. The idea would be alien to them.

As you pointed: Duchamps challenge the definition of art. He challege the iconoclastic model of art, focused on the object and artist. He turn it for, no doubt, an exercise of questioning and perception. Either if he did it good or not, it is certainly that art goes beyond the object - and again: literature is the object. Art is what we do with this object. How many text styles werent "art" and became? Lists? Mathematical equations? Mumble-jumble? Prefaces? Biographies? Encyclopedia entries? Book titles? Children lullabies? Scientific Thesis? Whale anatomy? Maps? Newspapers? The object didnt change, the use does.

And how to say it... Betrand Russell is a Nobel winner. Without writing a single artistic text.

[Stewed]

Oh god, I hate talking about this. You win.

[osho]

This question is really a tough one and we in fact cannot so easily answer this question for there are too many or varieties of topics or pieces that can fall under the umbrella of literature. For example when I read the Wealth of Nations written by Adam Smith or the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin I found a lot of literature in them and though many critics will ridicule me yet I find them great literary pieces

[Scheherazade]

I once had a professor who claimed that everything was art... Like the dinner you prepare, the scarf your gran knits, our daily dialogues.

I cannot remember what his arguments supporting this were, though... I was too busy napping or doodling (erm, producing my own art) at the back of the class.

[JCamilo]

I think most of time it is a problem of retoric, they think everything can be talked about art, then they say all is art. But you need just to bring anything they dislike much, to change it. I believe Stlukes favorite is the holocaust.

Everytime I have a student that goes to the "everything is art", but a teacher should build better his arguments.

[mal4mac]

"A work of art is anything that anyone has ever considered a work of art, though it may be a work of art only for that one person." - John Carey

[stlukesguild]

But why autobiographies are written with artistic purpose? Or text books dont?

Again, I stated that my definition of "literature" in no way limited the possible genre that might be included... if the work was recognized as artistically written. I suppose it would be possible for a text book to be literature. I suppose a good writer could find a means of turning a grocery list or list of ingredients into a literary work... but it seems to me that literature has yet to fall for the self-indulgent notions that the visual arts have fallen prey to... the Post-Duchampian notions that aesthetics are irrelevant and all that is necessary for something to be literature is that it it be written down... or rather that the individual who created it proclaims himself a writer and thus whatever he does is literature. I'm awaiting the literary variation on John Cage's 4:33: a novel-length book with nothing whatsoever on the pages.

How many text styles werent "art" and became? Lists? Mathematical equations? Mumble-jumble? Prefaces? Biographies? Encyclopedia entries? Book titles? Children lullabies? Scientific Thesis? Whale anatomy? Maps? Newspapers? The object didnt change, the use does.

Certainly... and what is the problem with that? It is quite possible... I would say it is quite likely that a lot of the late 20th century conceptual art that is wholly dependent upon the context, the prior knowledge of the audience, and the willingness to accept a urinal, a can of crap, , a pile of bricks, etc... as ART will eventually (perhaps in the not-to-distant future) no longer be thought of as art. We know that the theater at the time of Shakespeare was not thought of as ART. Few thought of TV at the time of its inception... or even film as ART. Comic books? Ukiyo-e prints? Many things that were never intended as ART or originally thought of as ART have become recognized as ART. It seems only logical that many other things that were once thought of as ART will eventually lose the status.

I think most of time it is a problem of retoric, they think everything can be talked about art, then they say all is art. But you need just to bring anything they dislike much, to change it. I believe Stlukes favorite is the holocaust.

Everytime I have a student that goes to the "everything is art", but a teacher should build better his arguments.

Unfortunately he probably can't frame his argument better. He has simply accepted... hook, line, and sinker... the late Modernist dictum that "everything is art" without thinking for the least bit about just what "everything" entails.

[cafolini]

"A work of art is anything that anyone has ever considered a work of art, though it may be a work of art only for that one person." - John Carey

Agree.

[JCamilo]

I think most of time it is a problem of retoric, they think everything can be talked about art, then they say all is art. But you need just to bring anything they dislike much, to change it. I believe Stlukes favorite is the holocaust.

Everytime I have a student that goes to the "everything is art", but a teacher should build better his arguments.

Unfortunately he problem can't frame his argument better. He has simply accepted... hook, line, and sinker... the late Modernist dictum that "everything is art" without thinking for the least bit about just what "everything" entails.

I would trace it to the whole "book of nature" medieval thinking. The idea that all universe, creation was the product of one artist (which take to the non-copy that was already in old religious philosophy). Modernism added more object of course, but i think the main notion they left behind is while the medievalists used the metaphor for creation of universe, they had a pretty clear notion that art is artificial. Today people seem to forget it and even use artist source that didnt intent to claim nature as art was the same as human Art (such the Ode to a Nightingale, have seen used to justify the idea Keats was saying nature is art, and not that he was inspired by nature. They probally do think the Muses are real women...).

As the modernist art that seem to think "Hey, Duchamps did it, let me do exactly the same and say I am creative" and that all art is reduced to creative "misplacement"of objects (a traditional artist still manipulate an object, just is not focused in a cleaver joke, which meaning is seriously destroyed by copy because, how many times you can laugh of a Fountain after all) I would say Literature got there first. Poe did Eureka (thinking well, it is basically what was done, he got a Scientific Thesis, claimed was poem, and asked to be judged for it. And that we have self-help books in verses, political treatside, mathematical exposition, or even a beauty guide modified, traveling diaries, newspaper entries. Less radical than Poe, of course, but I guess the interation between literature and popular literature was always a bit in "lets move it in" and see what people accept in this new context strategy).

In the end, acceptance is a problem. Brother's Grimm was not accepted as artistically written. Aristoteles and Plato not (Plato only recently). Cicero is not. Schopenhauer not. Kant?

[mal4mac]

But why autobiographies are written with artistic purpose? Or text books dont?

Again, I stated that my definition of "literature" in no way limited the possible genre that might be included... if the work was recognized as artistically written. I suppose it would be possible for a text book to be literature. I suppose a good writer could find a means of turning a grocery list or list of ingredients into a literary work... but it seems to me that literature has yet to fall for the self-indulgent notions that the visual arts have fallen prey to... the Post-Duchampian notions that aesthetics are irrelevant and all that is necessary for something to be literature is that it it be written down... or rather that the individual who created it proclaims himself a writer and thus whatever he does is literature. I'm awaiting the literary variation on John Cage's 4:33: a novel-length book with nothing whatsoever on the pages.

Carey's definition would disbar my weekly grocery list - I'm the only one that sees it and I certainly don't think it is literature! But any individual who writes something and declares it to be literature, if he is being honest, has indeed created a work of literature, at least in his own eyes. No one need agree with him of course! I don't think 4:33 is a work of art, others do, fine... That's up to them.

[Abookinthebath]

I'm afraid that I can't debate this topic at the same academic level as most on this thread, however from a personal point of view, I would agree with the view that 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder'.

Surely anything that encourages you to want to read more, at whatever level, has some literary value, even if it is only to help you decide that you don't like one particular genre?
I am coming from a laymans point of view here and as I say, can't offer any kind of academic back up to my opinions (nor do I want to!).

What I would say is that recently, my eyes have been opened to reading more 'classic' or 'well acclaimed' literature and I am very grateful for that. However, without reading less well acclaimed work, I may never have arrived at the point where I wanted to.

[YW1990]

Literature to me is truth that was never given the proper chance to be reality.

Amazing.
For me Literature is the quick of humanity.

[osho]

This question is too tough to answer in fact. I have many things in my mind to call them literature. I read not only books of literature, I read management, economics, even science too. I am a regular reader of some of the best economic articles of some popular columnists in the New York Times like Paul Krugman and Thomas Friedman. I have recently completed Thomas Friedman's nonfiction - The World is Flat. I consider this book totally literary despite the fact that there is no literary jargon and any literary sophistication. It is simple and yet literary in all respects. I often feel literature is everywhere and only it is a matter of presentation and synchronization. I do not think there is a short of story anywhere. We can come upon multitudes of story in every step of life readily and the problem however is one of language. I always feel I am running short of words or lacking syntactic style when I find some subjects or themes to write. My neighborhood, my society can be a good subject for me to write. Sometimes apart from this I write economic articles, the housing bubble, the economy of the Eurozone, the tea party, the Federal Reserve's quantitative easing or monetary policies of central banks or bailouting commercial banks and the like. I want to express such complex ideas giving them an air of literature. This is synthesizing literature rather than isolating it from the rest of other disciplines.

[PeterL]

I once had a professor who claimed that everything was art... Like the dinner you prepare, the scarf your gran knits, our daily dialogues.

I cannot remember what his arguments supporting this were, though... I was too busy napping or doodling (erm, producing my own art) at the back of the class.

Your professor was completely correct.""art" in the broad sense is anything the humans do that requires the intelligence of a human, that includes mechanical arts, culinary arts, etc.

[stlukesguild]

Your professor was completely correct.""art" in the broad sense is anything the humans do that requires the intelligence of a human, that includes mechanical arts, culinary arts, etc.

So the Holocaust was one giant work of ART?

Dr. Mengele's experiments upon children was a work of ART?

The attacks of 911 were a work of ART?

My uncle Bob sitting on the couch in his Speedos eating Cheetos and reading the sports page is ART?

I think you might need to rethink your definition.

Duchamp himself questioned the wisdom in the notion that "everything is art". That was the very impetus behind his Fountain (urinal)... a challenge to the very notion that art could not/should not have limitations.

[Alexander III]

Your professor was completely correct.""art" in the broad sense is anything the humans do that requires the intelligence of a human, that includes mechanical arts, culinary arts, etc.

So the Holocaust was one giant work of ART?

Dr. Mengele's experiments upon children was a work of ART?

The attacks of 911 were a work of ART?

My uncle Bob sitting on the couch in his Speedos eating Cheetos and reading the sports page is ART?

I think you might need to rethink your definition.

Duchamp himself questioned the wisdom in the notion that "everything is art". That was the very impetus behind his Fountain (urinal)... a challenge to the very notion that art could not/should not have limitations.

To play devils advocate a little

It is not that "everything is art" It is "Everything can be art"


The Holocaust and 9/11 were not works of art. But if I wanted to I could percieve them as works of art, they would become works of art. Surley there is a beauty of ingenuity and originality in both. They both built upon their individual historic traditions. The complexity and the smoothness of the operation - each cog fitting perfectly into place and making the same exact required note. The smoke of the crematorioums, the noise of the gas chambers. It can all be percieved as a an equal in scale of the sublime to bethovens 9th symphony or Picaso's Guernica. If we wanted to...

[mona amon]

Your professor was completely correct.""art" in the broad sense is anything the humans do that requires the intelligence of a human, that includes mechanical arts, culinary arts, etc.

So the Holocaust was one giant work of ART?

Dr. Mengele's experiments upon children was a work of ART?

The attacks of 911 were a work of ART?

My uncle Bob sitting on the couch in his Speedos eating Cheetos and reading the sports page is ART?

No, because there's no creator/artist and no 'creation' in these cases. No one engineered the Holocaust with the idea of creating something. The 911 attacks were done with the purpose of destruction, not creation. Uncle Bob sitting on the couch in his speedos can be a work of art if someone arranged him there with the object of making an aesthetic statement (or some other statement, I don't know all the ins and outs of it). The artist will find practical difficulties in exhibiting his work of art, though.

I think it's not impossible to find an objective, working definition of art, though probably not by me. It's finding some criteria to judge whether something is good art or bad art that is subjective and problematic.

[YW1990]

So the Holocaust was one giant work of ART?

Dr. Mengele's experiments upon children was a work of ART?

The attacks of 911 were a work of ART?

My uncle Bob sitting on the couch in his Speedos eating Cheetos and reading the sports page is ART?



These instances may not be works of art in themselves but they all definitely are valid departure points for initiating a work of art. An artwork about 9/11, may inspire the viewer of the artwork to SEE 9/11 as a work of art in itself.

[JCamilo]

No, because there's no creator/artist and no 'creation' in these cases. No one engineered the Holocaust with the idea of creating something. The 911 attacks were done with the purpose of destruction, not creation. Uncle Bob sitting on the couch in his speedos can be a work of art if someone arranged him there with the object of making an aesthetic statement (or some other statement, I don't know all the ins and outs of it). The artist will find practical difficulties in exhibiting his work of art, though.

Creator and artist is not the point either. And to the tell the truth, they could claim the holocaust was to create a german society they perceived as creation .

The point is "everything is art" is false because Art is not the only thing humankind creates (rulling out nature already). Science is not art and is an intelectual process of creation.

And, to add to Alexander, completing while the way the audience will perceive a work or Art is part of what defines art, it is not the only part. Otherwise football would be already art, as brazilian perceive the way the game is played as artful. Like YW1990 suggests, it can be a theme that inspire art just like a rose.

The objective definition will come the day people try to stop to define it by the artwork, by the artist or audience, but as a process of cultural production, that certainly deal with all those elements.

[OrphanPip]

Your professor was completely correct.""art" in the broad sense is anything the humans do that requires the intelligence of a human, that includes mechanical arts, culinary arts, etc.

So the Holocaust was one giant work of ART?

Dr. Mengele's experiments upon children was a work of ART?

The attacks of 911 were a work of ART?

My uncle Bob sitting on the couch in his Speedos eating Cheetos and reading the sports page is ART?

I think you might need to rethink your definition.

Duchamp himself questioned the wisdom in the notion that "everything is art". That was the very impetus behind his Fountain (urinal)... a challenge to the very notion that art could not/should not have limitations.

I think what Peter meant was art in the archaic sense of the word. As the words artisan and artist have the same root, the contemporary conception of art has not always existed. There was a time when the ability to compose music was considered a technical skill like carpentry or plumbing.

[PeterL]

I think what Peter meant was art in the archaic sense of the word. As the words artisan and artist have the same root, the contemporary conception of art has not always existed. There was a time when the ability to compose music was considered a technical skill like carpentry or plumbing.

I use the word "art" in the current sense that is not exclusionary. Terns like "the art of war", "mechanical arts", etc. are still in use. The "fine arts" have been known as such for a long time. I have encountered people before who felt that nothing was art except for their chosen art.

[JCamilo]

And of course, many people say science while refering to religion, politics, etc. The Art of etc is like Pip pointed, an achairc use of the world that still on use. But does not means it is the best suited for all discussions, after the restrictive use of art is also in use. Whales are no more fishes, dinosaurs lizards, and straigth lines are not straight... good life those times...

[mona amon]

Creator and artist is not the point either. And to the tell the truth, they could claim the holocaust was to create a german society they perceived as creation .

The point is "everything is art" is false because Art is not the only thing humankind creates (rulling out nature already). Science is not art and is an intelectual process of creation.

And, to add to Alexander, completing while the way the audience will perceive a work or Art is part of what defines art, it is not the only part. Otherwise football would be already art, as brazilian perceive the way the game is played as artful. Like YW1990 suggests, it can be a theme that inspire art just like a rose.

The objective definition will come the day people try to stop to define it by the artwork, by the artist or audience, but as a process of cultural production, that certainly deal with all those elements.

I don't think anyone is trying to say that "everything is art". That's plain ridiculous. "What is an apple?" "Everything's an apple!" - Doesn't work.

JCamillo, what does "process of cultural production" mean?

[YW1990]

I don't think anyone is trying to say that "everything is art". That's plain ridiculous. "What is an apple?" "Everything's an apple!" - Doesn't work.


What is art? Everything
What is an apple? Everything

You can't really compare the second one to the first. What warrants as art is an individual thing. A person can indeed have the attitude of seeing everything as art because what is defined as art is a subjective thing.
Apples are objective things. Certainly not everything is an apple.
I personally do not think that of everything as art. But i do believe that everything, yes everything has the potential to spawn art.

[osho]

What is art? Everything
What is an apple? Everything

i do believe that everything, yes everything has the potential to spawn art.

This is so beautifully and wisely said. In fact I strongly believe that art is everywhere and I feel that everybody is capable of coming up with beautiful stories. We are never running short of stories, novels or poems and what we lack is language skills. When I write poems I always run short of words and feel I am unable to structure my thoughts. Everyone has a story to tell and what differentiates a poet or a writer from the rest is he or she has good vocabulary and the ability to structure his or her ideas into good pieces of art.

[PeterL]

And of course, many people say science while refering to religion, politics, etc. The Art of etc is like Pip pointed, an achairc use of the world that still on use. But does not means it is the best suited for all discussions, after the restrictive use of art is also in use. Whales are no more fishes, dinosaurs lizards, and straigth lines are not straight... good life those times...

You may find current uses of words to be archaic, but such uses are clearly not archaic. Science in the broad sense is knowledge, so there is science involved in politics,religion, and the fine arts. Art in its broad sense is what people make or do, so there is art in medicine, war, politics, religion, computer design, mathematics, etc. Some people who express themselves poorly will use a broad word like science to mean just a narrow branch and expect that everyone will understand them, but people who express themselves well are careful to restrict those words to the matter at hand.

[osho]

Yes art has more to do with taste. Steve Jobs always chased after art and he once said technology must be married with the liberal arts. In fact art is something not just knowledge or technology. Even if you say design it has to do with human tastes, feelings, liking and the like. Art is something that adds value and this value is not just technical enhancement or improvement. It has greatly to do with the humanities.

Literature is an art and any piece of literature is art whether commercial or literary. Art is a refinement of human taste. In the ancient times we used to take baths in the rover and today with great advancement in science and technology we have baths inside our homes.

Today art has advanced tremendously through technology, for graphic designing has to do with computer.

Literature is a refinement and expression of human feelings.

Literature is a way or technique or manifestation of human thought and in fact

we through literature can understand human feelings

[JCamilo]

I don't think anyone is trying to say that "everything is art". That's plain ridiculous. "What is an apple?" "Everything's an apple!" - Doesn't work.

Actually, some people said art is everything and this provoked the answer of Stlukes.


JCamillo, what does "process of cultural production" mean?

The process of production of human culture. Art is one of those process, like science is, or mythology was also.

PeterL


You may find current uses of words to be archaic, but such uses are clearly not archaic. Science in the broad sense is knowledge, so there is science involved in politics,religion, and the fine arts. Art in its broad sense is what people make or do, so there is art in medicine, war, politics, religion, computer design, mathematics, etc. Some people who express themselves poorly will use a broad word like science to mean just a narrow branch and expect that everyone will understand them, but people who express themselves well are careful to restrict those words to the matter at hand.

Well, just like some people sayin all is art is expressing poorly what Art is. And just like it was pointed, this has origem in the past, when making shoes and making a music were together because all are artificial products of human creation.

[PeterL]

Well, just like some people sayin all is art is expressing poorly what Art is. And just like it was pointed, this has origem in the past, when making shoes and making a music were together because all are artificial products of human creation.

It appears that you have never bothered considering what some words mean. "Artificial" means that something was made by "art" rather than being natural. Music is as artificial as a pair of shoes or a sword. Similarly, writing is an art, while speech may not be, because speech is a natural ability of humans. There could be some great battles over whether speech was art or natural. Some would claim that writing was also natural; but, while both speech and writing use wrods, there is not a one-to-one correspondence w=between the two semiotic systems.

[JCamilo]

Very nice and all, it would be nice reply if In any place I claimed Artificial meant natural production and not exactly what you basically repeated from my post while "correcting me".

[osho]

Literature is everywhere and I always find every event literary and every man full of stories and every community rich in literary materials. All I need is language and I always run deficiently when it comes to language or vocabulary when I want to put forth my ideas into stories. I have right now a thousand and one stories in my mind and I have been seeking for the skill of jotting down with a good impact. I do not read Shakespeare or Kafka or Homer for ideas. I have plenty of them and am completely brimful awaiting the incessant flow. Again I lack this skill, language.

[irishpixieb]

WORTHWHILE READING MATERIAL!

haha thats the def my english teacher always gave!

[osho]

WORTHWHILE READING MATERIAL!

haha thats the def my english teacher always gave!

I could not get your point.