Originally Posted by
stlukesguild
The goal of writing should not be to sell books, but to write the most innovative and exciting literature imaginable.
According to whom? Artists must pay their rent and utilities as much as anyone else.
Look at all the endless varieties of music! It almost seems that there are as many kinds of music as there are drops of water in the ocean!
What a different story when you go to the bookstore! In the literature section of the bookstore you will find only novels, short stories, and poetry.
Hmmmm... last time I went to a book store I found Novels, Short Stories, Epic Poetry, narrative Poetry, Lyrical Poetry, Philosophy, Theology, Art Criticism, Literary Criticism, Biographies, Histories, Travelogues, Romances, Comic Books, Graphic Novels, Essays, Pornography, Children's Books, and I could go on and on. It seems that either your bookstore sucks or you don't know half as much about literature as you would have people think.
It’s fine to write novels, short stories, and poetry – but why not invent new forms of literature as well?
Again, it seems that you have little real experience with what varieties of literature are available. Baudelaire, Rimbaud and on through W.S. Merwin have been playing with varieties of "prose poetry". J.L. Borges made a career of blurring the boundaries between fiction and non-fiction, science fiction and philosophy, the short story and literary criticism, etc... There are plenty of writers who have pushed the capabilities of the book and various literary forms, but since when has pushing the boundaries or inventing new art forms been the central goal of art and the artist?
One of the reasons literature is so limited is that it is still shackled to the major publishing conglomerates and the universities.
Oh... and the visual arts and music are not equally "shackled" by those institutions that control the flow of money? When has this never been so? When, in you fantasy world, do you imagine that artists will not be beholding to those with the money?
Publishing houses have one and only one purpose: to make money. They are hostile to innovation in literature, because publishing innovative literature involves risk.
Hmmm... and yet they continue to churn out books by Anne Carson and Geoffrey Hill and other poets who cannot begin to make money on the level of the best-sellers. They continue to publish new translations of the Shanameh and Beowulf because of the mass audience for those works?
Contemporary literature of quality needs a home – and that home is not and cannot be the publishing conglomerates – because today’s publishing conglomerates are only concerned with money.
You haven't learned the first reality of art, have you? Art follows money. Artists need money as well as anyone else and the arts have always thrived where there has been a strong financial support for the endeavors of the artists.
By a young age Picasso had assimilated the “masters” of the past – and he went on to create new brazen works of art – he departed from the past – and created wonderful CONTEMPORARY masterpieces.
And what is your point? Don't start citing Picasso unless you think you know enough about him and his artistic development to engage in a real discussion. Picasso in no way rejected the art of the past. Of all the artists of the century he was the one probably the most indebted to the existence of the modern museums. Picasso, like any talented artist, developed his own unique voice. As with many of his Modernist peers he developed a language that was quite different from his immediate predecessors. He did not do so in order to be innovative... he did so because he recognized that the time he lived in demanded a different visual language from that he had inherited from his immediate predecessors. This language, however was quite definitely built upon the achievements of his predecessors.
Mozart also mastered traditional styles of classical music – and he went on to create music that at his time was INNOVATIVE.
What are the "traditional styles of classical music"? If you know so much about classical music you will know that the composers a generation or two before Mozart were working at the height of the Baroque era. By the mid-1750's the shift was underway toward "classicism"... less display of virtuosity, a clarity of form, balance, elegance, and an avoidance of extremes of emotion. Mozart inherited a style already fully developed by J.S. Bach's sons, Wilhelm Friedemann Bach, Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach, and Johann Christian Bach, as well as Joseph and Michael Haydn, Baldassare Galuppi, Giovanni Battista Pergolesi, Christoph Willibald Gluck, etc... Mozart has never been deemed as a great innovator, such as Beethoven, Wagner, and Stravinsky, but rather as a composer who took existing forms to the highest level within the language of the classical era. Great art is not always about innovation. J.S. Bach (perhaps the most important figure in Western classical music) was not a great innovator. Neither was Johannes Brahms or Richard Strauss, and yet all remain central figures of classical music.
Hence, the truly great masters of the recent past – in music (Stravinsky, Mahler), painting (Dali, etc.), sculpture (Rodin) – produced great works that were INNOVATIVE and hence FRESH and EXCITING.
Yet Mahler was deeply rooted in the music of Wagner while Rodin owed much to Michelangelo, Donatello, and even Jean-Baptiste Carpeaux. Brahms was quite likely one of the most conservative composers of the late 19th century, firmly rooted in the music of Beethoven and rejecting all the innovations wrought by Wagner... and yet Brahms' achievements equal or surpass those of any composer of the era. Again, innovation is not the sole measure of art.
In contrast, those that worship the past tend to produce works that are stale and flat.
That's true... but only in the sense that 95%+ of all art is mediocre at best, and so the majority of those firmly rooted in tradition achieve little of any worth... but then again the majority of those iconoclasts who rush headlong into the "new" achieve little more than novelties that are soon dated and rightfully forgotten.
There are those that argue that first you must learn tradition to be a great writer. By all means I agree you should read as much “great” literature as possible – both traditional and contemporary. But then some of these same people will go on to say “learn the rules before you break them.”
Most art schools, creative writing departments, and departments of composition push contemporary works of art and contemporary ideas as much as they push the traditional... indeed, probably moreso.
Forget learning the rules unless you plan to write a conventional essay or a guide to used car repair. In creative literature go ahead and unshackle yourself from all rules! SMASH any and all rules with a sledgehammer, a wrecking ball, or better yet with a pen or a paintbrush! Works of literature, music, painting, etc, should obey no conventional rules whatsoever. If you feel the urge to have rules invent your own! Look at Schoenberg’s 12 tone scale!
You really don't understand art, do you? All of these great innovators you speak of had the greatest understanding, respects, and profound love of the achievements of their predecessors. Any art school... any creative writing department is full of sophomoric iconoclasts who can rant about revolutions is the arts with the best of them... but will never achieve the least thing of merit for the simple reason that the great innovations in the arts have never been wrought by iconoclasts ignorant and disrespectful of art, but rather by those artists with the deepest love and understanding of the artistic tradition they have inherited. Schoenberg was fully aware of the tradition of classical music... to the point that he could write the most masterful music in the Romantic style he inherited at a young age. His innovations were structured greatly upon the achievements of Wagner and Mahler and Debussy stretching the possibilities of chromaticism. He was also deeply indebted to Brahms' chamber works. Schoenberg simply took these to the logical conclusion... creating a music that conveyed the manner in which the old order was fragmenting in the same way that Cubism and T.S. Eliot's fragments conveyed such. His goal was continue the Austro-Germanic tradition of classical music... not to destroy it.
Let’s take grammar for example. Obeying the rules of grammar is fine if you’re writing a conventional essay or a manual about car repair. However, when you’re writing creative literature you should write as freely as possible – without rules.
Why? When you break the traditional rules you are forcing the audience to go outside the inherited artistic language. The question become: "To what purpose?" Breaking the rules simply for the sake of breaking the rules results in little more than meaningless novelty.
Certainly, if the reader is lazy, ignorant, or simply close-minded he may choose not to apply himself to any literature that is different than what he is used to. Such a person may be more comfortable reading an airport novel or one of the works of the past “greats”.
This has been the argument of those who have embraced the extremes of the avant-garde for nearly a century: it is all the audience's fault. They're lazy, ignorant, and stupid... unlike myself, the genius visionary artist. It makes for a great defense mechanism... if your art is rejected it is because the audience is too moronic to recognize a profound artistic prophet.
At times, such a person may have an advanced degree and consider themselves highly cultured and learned, but all those years reading literature that is conventional can make it harder for that person’s brain to concentrate on and grasp anything that’s written in a new and innovative manner.
My God! We got an answer for everything. If the masses don't like your work, it's because they are but idiots and bumpkins. If the critics, and academics, and others educated in literature don't like your writing, it's because they have become so accustomed to the "conventional" (and what exactly is the "conventional" in literature?) and so they are blind to your genius. You can't lose.
There are people who look at a Jackson Pollock canvas and say, “My five year old can do a better job than that.” Of course, such people are ignorant of art. Instead of studying art (which they don’t) they take their prejudices (which are pro-representational and pro-realism) and from a position of ignorance and prejudice they proclaim everything that doesn’t conform to their ignorant and prejudiced misconceptions of art to be bad. In the world of literature it is even worse. Those who are ignorant, prejudiced, and close-minded stand in judgment of what is “good literature”.
Everyone comes to art carrying a degree of ignorance and bias. Art employs a language and a vocabulary that must be learned prior to our understanding it. The artist who intentionally breaks outside of the boundaries of the inherited artistic tradition... the inherited language and vocabulary of a given culture recognizes that this will result in making his or her work more challenging and less accessible. To do so without purpose is merely pretentious.
Should the writer create works of “literature” easily accessible to even the most ignorant and close-minded of readers? Sure, if he wants to make money or be accepted by the conservative world of academia.
But of course you are above making money... unlike virtually every artist in the whole of history.
Frankly, I am rather disappointed with English literature and have ironically found greater inspiration for my writing outside of literature in the other arts (painting, sculpture, architecture, music, modern dance, postmodern theater, etc.). Many of the past “greats” that are in the canon of English literature are not so “great” at all.
Frankly, I couldn't care less about your opinions. You have not proven yourself with regards to your critical acumen to an extent that I could take your criticism seriously, and you certainly haven't proven your own writing ability as worthy of standing alongside any of the "greats" that you are so quick to dismiss. Indeed, without getting into specifics, you are but making broad sweeping generalizations that have no value whatsoever.
Many of the “great works” of English literature in the canon were written by “gentleman” with disposable income. Not all of them were talented or had much to say. Is a writer/poet’s work “great” just because it’s included in the Norton Anthology and the professor taught it in your literature 101 class?
Again, meaningless generalizations: Many of the "great works" were written by rich guys. They can't have had anything worth saying, can they?
Of course, some “great” works of the past are better than others. Some of these gentleman of leisure in the canon had talent – in addition to the work ethic necessary to produce great literature – but not all of them.
Many... some... more meaningless generalizations. Anyone can play at this game: "The majority of modern poetry is boring". Who are the "majority"? Why are they boring... and to whom?
Literature has not even begun to reach its potential. In fact, literature will not even begin to reach its potential until all of humanity has ample food in its stomach and plenty of free time.
Spoken like a true prophet. We all eagerly await this glowing future in which poverty and hunger (and undoubtedly warfare and violence and disease) have all been eradicated and we are all basking of the glow of an infinity of artistic genius.
The seed of talent falls where it may. Most of those who have disposable income without having to work for it and thus have plenty of free time to write are inborn, have little or no work ethic, and are of mediocre abilities – like the president of my country George Bush. Besides, the outlook of the leisure class is often conservative, so it would not occur to them to write literature that is innovative.
More generalities and stereotypes. I won't even waste my time going into composers, artists, and writers who were born wealthy... let alone those who became wealthy through their own efforts and yet continued to create. But doesn't this entire thought go against your earlier notion that real art isn't the product of a desire to make money? By this standard might we not say that those rich guys who didn't need to work... and didn't need to write to make money... approached their writing from a higher ethical position?
Most people are so engaged in the struggle for survival that they do not have the time to create innovative literature. When humanity is freed from its bondage to an economic system that benefits only a privileged few than a shorter workweek for all will make it possible for more people to create great works of literature, painting, sculpture, etc.
In a different kind of economy huge amounts of money will not be wasted on maintaining a class of worthless bourgeois bums
God! What pretension! The middle-class are all but bums... unlike the artistic genius such as yourself who contributes so much to society... by... by... staring at your navel?
With more money available culture, literature, and the arts would flourish more than ever – because we could improve the quality of education – including teaching more art in the schools – and offering free higher education to all. In such a society, we could also give a modest living stipend to writers and artists. And since more diverse parts of humanity would be free to create great literature – instead of just a small privileged leisure class – literature will have more variety and innovation than ever.
I gotta find out just what you've been drinking.
Thus freed from their chains to market forces and academia writers would be free to create a new innovative literature. A general population with a reduced workweek would have more time to read a new revolutionary literature that’s constantly changing and evolving.
Yep... I really gotta find out what you've been drinking.
Hence, human civilization is constantly evolving, and as civilization evolves so will literature. And just as human civilization has not even begun to reach its full potential, so the same is true for literature and the other arts.
Art changes as the artists respond to the world in which they live. Art does not get better or worse. Certainly there are periods and cultures... even cities that have produced more works of artistic genius than others but art is not like science in the manner that the least medical student today knows more about disease and its treatment than the greatest doctors of the 1500s. Perhaps if art never changed... if the goals and standards remained ever stagnant, then we might expect later generations to build upon the achievements of earlier... and surpass them. But such is not the reality. Art, as you suggest, is ever changing and artist will forever struggle in attempting to come to terms with the world and the artistic traditions they have inherited.
The best contemporary writers of creative literature – those who write today and will be read a hundred two hundred a thousand years from now – will not be those who copy the past but instead those who CONTRIBUTE to the DEVELOPMENT of literature. The writers who will be read a thousand years from now will be those who helped literature to advance.
Again... the goal is not the development of art. Painters don't sit about pondering how they might contribute to the development of painting. Painting... art... develops as artists respond to the world they live in. Some will dig deeper into the traditions they have inherited, others will turn the traditions on their heads in order to best convey what it is they have to express.
Traditionalists will argue that it is preferable and natural that literature remain the most backward and conservative medium of the art world. (Compare literature’s snail-like advancement to the great innovations in painting, sculpture, and the other arts since the beginning of modernism in the late 19th Century.) However, there is nothing positive about literature’s relative backwardness compared to the other arts. Even classical music in the past 120 years has left the literary world behind in innovation, boldness, and creativity! How pathetic!
Your comparison is simply sad because all it does is suggest little grasp of the very real achievements of literature, and very little grasp of just how rooted in the whole of the tradition of painting and classical music modern and contemporary painting and music remain.
Look – the reason that literature is so backward compared to the other arts can be explained by several simple reasons. The first is money. For a writer to make enough money to support himself comfortably he has to sell A LOT of books. A painter, on the other hand, needs only a few appreciative buyers to support himself.
Please! Stop now, before you make yourself look more and more foolish. What do you know of the costs incurred by a painter? What do I need to be a poet? A pencil and a notebook... perhaps a computer in the corner of a tiny apartment somewhere. How much does it cost to rent the studio space and pay for the utilities needed in order to have a place to paint? How much do canvases and stretchers coast? Of course I can get around these costs if I have a woodshop and the proper tools. But still the wood and canvas and primer add up. And how expensive is oil paint? Go price some cadmium red on the internet. And what of frames? And then all I gotta do is sell the work... but how do I meet those wealthy patrons who can afford to buy a painting... and how much do I actually need to sell in order to make anything approaching a decent income from a day job?
Thus, it is easier for the painter to paint whatever he wants. The painter may have to deal with galleries – but he doesn’t have to deal with publishing corporations.
The galleries ARE the same as the publishing houses. They are there to make money. They only show that which they believe they have an audience for. In return for connecting the artist with the buyer the galleries take between 30%-50% of the market price.
The painter doesn’t have to consider entertaining a large reading audience primarily looking for cheap entertainment like the writer does.
No... the visual artist must entertain the wealthy collector. Some are looking for something to communicate their wealth and stability. Others are looking for something that communicates their willingness to take chances. Still others are but bored and looking for something that shocks... for but a moment. A very few have a real eye for art.
Another conservatising influence (yes I probably just made up a word – good! We writers should make up words more often) – another conservatising influence on the literary world is the whole prestige game. You get your work in certain prestigious “literary” magazines, get nominated for certain prestigious “literary” awards, etc. – and suddenly you’re considered a “great” writer/poet.
How does this differ from any other art form? If I am given a one-man show at certain prestigious galleries I will certainly be taken seriously by the art press and art collectors. If I am able to demand a certain price and I can get into the museums, my reputation is certainly assured (for at least my lifetime). If the Berlin Philharmonic performs my composition, I will suddenly be in demand. If I am recorded on Deutsche Gramophone with the London Philharmonic, I will assuredly be recognized as a leading figure in music.
The pages of many (not all) of the most prestigious literary magazines are filled with excrement masquerading as great literature that doesn’t even qualify as mediocre – it’s just plain bad, conservative, and bland.
And...? The art galleries are filled with equally excretory works as are the concerts of contemporary classical music.
The same is true for many “literary” awards. An “avant-garde” poet received a very large monetary award recently. I won’t name him here – but his work was so conservative, so dull, so devoid of innovation, so much like a zillion other poems you see everywhere that I don’t see how his poetry could be considered “avant-garde”. I guess for the people giving out the prestigious awards and the money anything that doesn’t rhyme is considered “avant-garde”.
Again with the generalities. By not naming this poet your complaint is meaningless and comes off as nothing more or less than petty envy.
It would be a great day for literature if all writers and poets started using the pages of the prestigious literary magazines as toilet paper. We don’t need the editors of the prestigious “literary” magazines to showcase great literature because they don’t even know what literature is – let alone great literature. The same can be said of those who give out prestigious “literary” awards – but maybe I shouldn’t say that – sometimes they actually give money to people who write good poetry!
More generalities and petty envy.
With the technology print-on-demand books that are not commercial can now be made available to the general public. For the first time ever the general public can purchase and read all kinds of works of literature that were never available before.
Technology is changing the game in how literature, music, film, and art are marketed. There is no profound revelation there. Most artists recognize this and struggle with trying to come to terms with the new technologies. The notion that this represents some Utopian future in which the artist will be in complete control of his or her endeavors is naive in the least.
Something you may want to ask yourself is – why do you write? Do you write to make money? Do you write for prestige and acclaim? Do you write with the opinions of others in mind? Or do you write because you have to create?
Gee! Thanks Wolf. I don't know what we would have done without you. I mean surely none of us who create works of art of any genre had even thought to ever sit down and ask ourselves just what our goals were.
If the reason that you write is that you have to create than money, prestige, and the opinions of others are all secondary. Creating innovative works of literature is probably not going to make you money or give you prestige and acclaim anytime soon. And like many others who were creative – like Gauguin, Mahler, Rodin, etc. – you will receive endless harsh attacks.
Gauguin did? I thought he was largely ignored and ended up dying in French Polynesia of a combination of syphilis, morphine, and a weak heart. Even then he was supported by the leading Parisian dealer, Ambroise Vollard. Mahler? His own music seems to have had responses. The public seems to have quite liked his music (to the point that by his death there had been over 260 performances of his symphonies across Europe and the US), but critics and many musicians and singers were resentful of his dictatorial conducting style which insisted on the highest standards. And Rodin? He struggled early on... as most artists do, but by mid-career he was awarded endless official and private commissions as well as awards and prizes. While still alive, his studio/home was officially converted into the Musée Rodin.
Let others make all the money from their airport novels, let others receive all the prestige and acclaim for their conventional banal “poetry”. Let others receive all the applause for their conservative traditional works written in “good taste”. Their work will wither into dust over time. A hundred years from now no one will be reading their novels, poems, and plays.
Nor will they be reading 95%+ of the stuff written by those aspiring to be "serious" writers revolutionizing literature. In the mean time, the artist/writer needs to pay rent and support his or her family.
Nearly everything ever painted, sculpted, or written in “good taste” later withered and died with time. “Good taste” is nothing more than what is in fashion at the time – and as time passes what was in “good taste” centuries ago becomes trivial.
Yesterday's "good taste" is today's "avant garde" and "shock art".
Many of the masters of the past in literature, painting, sculpture, and music were nothing less than innovators and revolutionaries in their time. Their work often caused controversy because they were not enslaved to tradition. They did not care about “good taste”. They could give a damn about the opinions of others.
Neither could they care the least about manifestos proscribing what art is... including your own.
Posting Permissions
