marotta%lezah.DEC@decwrl.ARPA (08/28/85)
From: marotta%lezah.DEC@decwrl.ARPA (MARY MAROTTA) All works produced with skill, knowledge, or creativity are essentially artistic. A work of Art is generally judged in excellence by comparison with products of similar processes. Sculptures made from marble, from ice, and from old automobile parts can be compared; qualitative judgements can be made and even a ranking can be imposed, based on the standards of good sculpture. A visually entertaining piece is easier to judge than a novel, of course, but the artistic element of a novel is no less apparent. A work of art is judged by its expression -- a good artist conveys the emotional level of his work as well as the technical level. This is what makes a sculpture both entertaining and well-executed. So, to clarify the discussion of Art v.s. Entertainment, we have to define Art as the ability to craft a piece using knowledge and skill as well as creative thinking. And to entertain a subject, the piece has to convey both technical and aesthetic impressions. If you, as the subject, are unfamiliar with the technical requirements of an art form, you are less likely to appreciate the results of the artistic endeavor. On the other hand, a heavy emphasis on the creativity of the artistic process can obscure an appreciation of the work. Artistic quality is the result of both technical and creative technique. Most people appreciate a work for its technical merits, based on the level of knowledge available about the craft. If you are familiar with the literary tenets by which a novel is determined to be a Classic of literature, you will probably find the sheer artistic skill of the author to be entertaining. If you are less familiar with these tenets, then you probably rely on the author's ability to convey impressions and sensations -- the creative level of the novel. But you would not appreciate this level of writing if the author didn't subscribe to certain tenets of literature. Sometimes the author succeeds in conveying the desired impression by selectively rejecting or reversing the rules. For example, see the classic Alice In Wonderland. Vonnegut, Jr. also bends the rules, to achieve a conversational, personal style of writing. Artistic license doesn't mean that the artist can do any anything she wants. The author of a novel must convey some emotions and/or ideas to the reader. Sometimes these are revealed through a plot structure that depends on chronological occurrences. Since this is a controlled, familiar environment, this device is effective for the general reader. But a novel can be based on impressions, sensations, and philosophical beliefs. Take William Faulkner, or Samuel Delaney. No clear plot. No logical cause-effect occurrences to provide the reader with the sensation of movement, change, and action. Instead, these authors require you to read differently, to assess the impact of each sentence, each thought, at an emotional and associative level. Similar to a painting by Picasso, Dahlgren asks you to accept the artist's style as the most effective way to convey impressions and sensations. If you can associate the elements in a Picasso painting with your own view of life, if you can understand why all the elements are collected onto one canvas, and if you had some reaction to the painting, then you appreciate Picasso as an artist, his painting as a work of art. Dahlgren has to be viewed with the same intention. In reading most novels, it is apparent from the beginning whether the plot is based on action or on sensations. Since almost all actions and impressions in Dahlgren are strictly from the perspective of one rather confused human being, the action in the novel is certainly of less importance than the thoughts and feelings of this protagonist. But there is action in Dahlgren. Everything happens to the protagonist, and this perspective governs the reader's impressions of the action. Perhaps the greatest difficulty in appreciating this style of writing is surrendering to the emotive influences of another's thoughts and feelings. It is far easier to read a Fantasy novel than Sound and Fury, but you will find that the discipline of reading William Faulkner is rewarded by a greater appreciation for the power of the written word. When can a novel be judged as A Work of Art? The requirements are clear: the author must use skill, knowledge, and creativity in producing the novel. The first novel by an author does not necessarily reveal the author's control over his craft, though it can indicate the level of creativity that the author is able to convey in writing. The bestseller is not always a Work of Art -- The Joy of Sex was really popular for awhile, but it's about as innovative as its subject matter. However, an author who proves his craft by displaying skill and creativity in successive works, and whose work becomes popular, even posthumously, can be judged more objectively as an artist. Only time can make a Classic, but each of us contributes to the popularity of any one author or novel. To judge each book as a Work of Art is to limit the power of the Science Fiction genre, by creating a standard for authors to follow. Since Science Fiction and Fantasy depend on innovation as well as effective technique, they can only suffer by attempting to conform to the standards imposed by the readership. Better to judge a book for its own merits, an author for her unique skills, and be aware of artistic attempts that fail. Not all Art is good, but all good novels are artistic.
psc@lzwi.UUCP (Paul S. R. Chisholm) (09/16/85)
In article <3440@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU>, marotta%lezah.DEC@decwrl.ARPA writes: > From: marotta%lezah.DEC@decwrl.ARPA (MARY MAROTTA) >... > Artistic license doesn't mean that the artist can do any anything she > wants. The author of a novel must convey some emotions and/or ideas to the > reader. Sometimes these are revealed through a plot structure that depends > on chronological occurrences. Since this is a controlled, familiar > environment, this device is effective for the general reader. But a novel > can be based on impressions, sensations, and philosophical beliefs. Take > William Faulkner, or Samuel Delaney. . . . (Please.-) (smiley face with wink) > No clear plot. No logical > cause-effect occurrences to provide the reader with the sensation of > movement, change, and action. . . . No story. (See below.) > Instead, these authors require you to read > differently, to assess the impact of each sentence, each thought, at an > emotional and associative level. Similar to a painting by Picasso, > Dahlgren asks you to accept the artist's style as the most effective way to > convey impressions and sensations. If you can associate the elements in a > Picasso painting with your own view of life, if you can understand why all > the elements are collected onto one canvas, and if you had some reaction to > the painting, then you appreciate Picasso as an artist, his painting as a > work of art. below: But it's the forest that's grand, as pretty as the trees are. Picasso didn't do brush strokes, he did *pictures*, and it's the pictures that are the art. Similarly, *fiction* is the telling of *stories*. I don't demand a beginning, a middle, and an end (at least, not necessarily in that order). But a story is different that an incident, a characterization, or a description. You can have prose that is just one of those three, just as you can have a poem that doesn't tell a story. I maintain that such is less entertaining, and in some important sense, falls short even as Art. > It is far easier to read a Fantasy novel > than Sound and Fury, but you will find that the discipline of reading > William Faulkner is rewarded by a greater appreciation for the power of the > written word. I agree with you there. I read the first of Delany's Neveryon books, and the primary feeling I got out of it was pride that I finished it. I'm not sure what that says about about the story. Maybe that the writing was worthwhile, but the story wasn't worth the effort. > When can a novel be judged as A Work of Art? The requirements are clear: > the author must use skill, knowledge, and creativity in producing the > novel. The first novel by an author does not necessarily reveal the > author's control over his craft, though it can indicate the level of > creativity that the author is able to convey in writing. Bush. (As in 'bu--sh--'.) A first novel reveals an author's control over his or her craft at that point in his or her career. Books are static (except in individual's appreciation); writers grow. You seem to be saying that *writers*, not *writing*, should be categorized as Artistic or not. Even given that such pigeonholing is reasonable (reviews can point out good reads for readers who only read Art?), no writer is perfect. Not even in selecting what should go out in the mail, rather than in the trash. > To judge each book as a Work of Art is to limit the power of the Science > Fiction genre, by creating a standard for authors to follow. Since Science > Fiction and Fantasy depend on innovation as well as effective technique, > they can only suffer by attempting to conform to the standards imposed by > the readership. Better to judge a book for its own merits, an author for > her unique skills, and be aware of artistic attempts that fail. Not all > Art is good, but all good novels are artistic. I submit that this is true of all writing, from the worst articles in Byte to Hemingway and/or Falkner. The existence of "good reads" doesn't detract from the quality of Art. One can bemoan the unwashed public's choice of entertainment over Art; however, in the absence of official Art Recognizers (local #345 of the Teamsters, no doubt), tomorrow's Art will come from today's "Entertainment". Considering the wealth and variety of today's Art, that seems to work out. -- -Paul S. R. Chisholm The above opinions are my own, {pegasus,vax135}!lzwi!psc not necessarily those of any {mtgzz,ihnp4}!lznv!psc telecommunications company. (*sigh* ihnp4!lzwi!psc does *NOT* work!!! Use above paths.) "Of *course* it's the murder weapon. Who would frame someone with a fake?"