It has been nearly the same in comparison to the last twenty years. However, TV has really been the replacement and many would rather refer to a movie/TV adaptation of a book instead. But endorsement from he internet has made books a bit more accessible and affordable. Although the material people choose these days is not quite a refinement, such as Twilight, it is nonetheless gratifying to see people, especially youth, enjoying the printing word once again.
I think that literature has changed so much because people are always looking for things they can relate to in a story. It's just like the modern tv adaptations of, for example, sherlock holmes. People want modernised stories, and along the way this may or may not have resulted in a decline in reading habits (though i dont know because i'm only young).
'For sale: baby shoes, never worn'. Hemingway
Well, I think that such an approximation is difficult to make because today's popular fiction is tomorrow's great literature.
For example, Dickens was wildly popular in his time simply for his entertainment value, and now he is seen as a classic author.
Also, you say Crichton is not "serious literature", yet his novels are loaded with social and scientific commentary. Some of his books are fairly simple, but most work through important and complex social and scientific issues.
Next, one of his last novels, is a grand tale about the ethical problems of genetic engineering.
I strongly suggest you read Crichton before you judge him, or read more if you haven't read much.
I view this as elitist. Art is supposed to generate emotion, it can't be analyzed as being 'valid' or not because it doesn't appeal to you.seldom expose themselves to serious literature.
I view this as elitist.
And??? Art is elitist.
Beware of the man with just one book. -Ovid
The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them.- Mark Twain
My Blog: Of Delicious Recoil
http://stlukesguild.tumblr.com/
Well, I did read Jurassic Park. Perhaps, I was unfair in singling in him out. But he's no Dickens that's for sure.Originally Posted by Stendhal
Why is it elitist?
Because any one can read Keat's poem, To a Nightingale, anyone can think it good, and like it. But to see it's true beauty one must in a way study it and explore it, also one must have read poetry which preceded it in order to truly value it. This takes a lot of time, most people don't have or don't want to use up such a vast amount of time in such endeavors. In fact in the olden days art was mainly for the aristocrats and upper middle classes, as they were the only one who had sufficient time to devote to it. So yep art always has been, and in a sense alway's shall be elitist.
Even if you look at art which appears to be anti-elitist, such as Kerouac's novels, with a depthened look, you can see it is very elitist, as all good art is.
Couldn't anything become elitist then?
Precisely
I read, more or less...
No, art is an expression of emotion. You cannot analyze whether or not art is valid because emotions are not logical or illogical. This attitude is why I could never consider myself to be an 'intellectual' (besides just not being very intelligent
Last edited by African_Love; 09-02-2010 at 01:05 PM.
So your saying a Poem of Spenser is of equal merit to that produced by a random boy at 14 ?No, art is an expression of emotion. You cannot analyze whether or not art is valid because emotions are not logical or illogical. This attitude is why I could never consider myself to be an 'intellectual' (besides just not being very intelligent
Art expresses emotion true. But as with all things in life, you can do it badly, well or greatly.
Well, he is just reacting to the word elitist. Saying something is the expression of an emotion (which is also a poor definition of art) would not contest or sustain the elitism of art.
I would say the word elitism is unecessary, it is rather obvious: all fields of human knowledge (as much as human life) produce elits. Just like Eistein belongs to an elite where I do not belong, Beethoveen belonged to one elite. Simple as that, someone will produce know better physics just like someone will make better music.
Of course, some aspects related to art is not elitist: production does not need to be (albeit, it is regulated by economic factors, so it is), neither access. Being elitist does not means either popular artists wont be part of the elite, Shakespeare is always a proof that he is both popular and part of an elite. Dickens is another example. Of course He wrote popular novels, but just like several others and of course, Dickens was superior to them all. It is not because he is popular that he is liked or the other disliked, but because of his work.
So, in the end, Art is not elitist, but it does a generate an elite that put apart the quality works and artists and will forgot others. Art allows the bad art to exist too. Elitism is not bad as the democratic misconception of merit seems to imply.
bolded - would you say that feces is as beautiful as a sunset? Probably not, but you can't analyze one as being more beautiful than the other. Either you have that emotional response or you do not.
You cannot express an emotion 'badly'. Emotions are subjective, whether or not you find any work of art to be appealing is a matter of taste, nothing can be proven to be beautiful or inspiring.
What other definition of art is there besides being an expression of emotion or creativity/imagination?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
