|
|
Post by Marina on Jun 9, 2011 21:12:42 GMT -5
There's something so robotic about the term "text," but I kind of like it. It makes everything equal. Ditto -- it's much less... judgmental? than the term "literature." But as Olive said, it doesn't apply to things that aren't, well, text. Which brings up the question: can an image count as literature? Only in a graphic novel. Otherwise it's art. |
|
|
|
Post by cyanea on Jun 9, 2011 21:17:29 GMT -5
Ditto -- it's much less... judgmental? than the term "literature." But as Olive said, it doesn't apply to things that aren't, well, text. Which brings up the question: can an image count as literature? Only in a graphic novel. Otherwise it's art. I'd argue that an image doesn't have to be part of a graphic novel to be considered a part of literature, as long as its linked to text in some way. Blake's Songs of Innocence and Experience, I feel, can't be analyzed fully without the pictures that accompany each poem. |
|
|
|
Post by Marina on Jun 9, 2011 21:24:45 GMT -5
Only in a graphic novel. Otherwise it's art. I'd argue that an image doesn't have to be part of a graphic novel to be considered a part of literature, as long as its linked to text in some way. Blake's Songs of Innocence and Experience, I feel, can't be analyzed fully without the pictures that accompany each poem. I agree with that. I didn't take picture accompaniment into account. But then, the picture is still supported by text. What I meant was without text, the picture is just art. |
|
|
|
Post by onlyaworkingtitle on Jun 9, 2011 21:43:47 GMT -5
Only in a graphic novel. Otherwise it's art. I'd argue that an image doesn't have to be part of a graphic novel to be considered a part of literature, as long as its linked to text in some way. Blake's Songs of Innocence and Experience, I feel, can't be analyzed fully without the pictures that accompany each poem. So we're accepting picture books, it seems. How do we feel about literature-inspired artwork, or artwork that incorporates literature? Tim Rollins, for example, started an organization called "Kids for Survival" in which he teaches at-risk kids about literature using art. Most of their works are actually painted onto pages of the books themselves, cut out and pasted to huge* canvases; they're quite extraordinary and striking to see in person, but would we call them "literature"? Here's their Wikipedia page: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Rollins_and_K.O.S. and a few of their pieces, many of which are in museums and galleries across the globe: -"By Any Means Necessary," based on Malcolm X: www.moma.org/collection/browse_results.php?criteria=O%3AAD%3AE%3A19238&page_number=1&template_id=1&sort_order=1-"Amerika VIII," based on Kafka's Amerika: www.moma.org/collection/browse_results.php?criteria=O%3AAD%3AE%3A19238&page_number=2&template_id=1&sort_order=1-"White Alice," based on Alice in Wonderland: www.moma.org/collection/browse_results.php?criteria=O%3AAD%3AE%3A19238&page_number=3&template_id=1&sort_order=1-"XI," based on The Temptation of Saint Antony I-XIV: www.moma.org/collection/browse_results.php?criteria=O%3AAD%3AE%3A19238&page_number=5&template_id=1&sort_order=1*The second one I linked ("Amerika VIII")is over five feet tall and fourteen feet wide; 297 pages at my leaning-in-and-squinting count. That's the entire book (minus front- and back-matter). I am wowed. PS: This is the only "modern" art I have ever fangirled over. I love love love it. |
|
|
|
Post by Marina on Jun 9, 2011 21:53:07 GMT -5
Yeah, but that's not meant to be read, just looked at and educated from. I mean, the Sistine Chapel illustrates the Bible, and so do most paintings from back then, since most people couldn't read. I'm not going to consider that literature. This is where I draw the line.
Literature needs to be read, or if you're disabled, you have to have someone "read" it do you.
|
|
|
|
Post by onlyaworkingtitle on Jun 9, 2011 22:19:46 GMT -5
Yeah, but that's not meant to be read, just looked at and educated from. I mean, the Sistine Chapel illustrates the Bible, and so do most paintings from back then, since most people couldn't read. I'm not going to consider that literature. This is where I draw the line. Literature needs to be read, or if you're disabled, you have to have someone "read" it do you. So literature is text intended to be read, and images that are intended to accompany and enhance that text can be included as part of that text and so part of literature. Images that are inspired by literature but not inherently part of it are not themselves literature. Another question intended to clarify the definition: do we include plays in "literature"? The script may be written as text, but the intended mode if expression is via performance, not reading. For example, we spend so much time glorifying Shakespeare, but most of his work wasn't meant to be read by anyone but the actors, who needed to in order to memorize lines; even then, ad-libbing wasn't strictly prohibited, so the actual piece that was received by the audience wasn't entirely word-for-word what was in the original script. Does that piece count as "literature"? (Please note: everything that I've posted in this thread so far has been in the role of Devil's-advocate-slash-discussion-facilitator. I have yet to reveal my own opinion.) |
|
|
|
Post by Marina on Jun 9, 2011 22:44:30 GMT -5
Well, since we still actually read them, they are published in book form, and they can be read: plays count. And if a text with a picture can count, and an electronic phonebook, then a play definitely can.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dodger Thirteen on Jun 10, 2011 0:19:07 GMT -5
This is the thread that never ends...
Yes it goes on and on my friends...
Only a...working title started it one day...
And we'll continue posting forever just to say...
|
|
|
|
Post by onlyaworkingtitle on Jun 10, 2011 1:46:17 GMT -5
This is the thread that never ends... Yes it goes on and on my friends... Only a...working title started it one day... And we'll continue posting forever just to say... SHUT UP YOU KNOW YOU LOVE IT |
|
|
|
Post by iamahexagon on Jun 10, 2011 11:38:13 GMT -5
When we analyze pictures, don't we look for the same things as we do as when we analyze books? We look for theme, symbolism, ect. Sure, maybe we can't look for the character development, but in really good pictures, can't you see a plot? Can't you tell or think about what everything means? When you read a book, don't you have to look "in-between the lines"? The main difference is that, in pictures, tactics other than words are used.
Plays, I think, are literature. Well, at least certain ones. I'm slightly cringing as I'm typing this, but I would consider a majority of Shakespeare's play literature. In classes, we read them and analyze them for the same things as we do with books, with some adjustments. Maybe the intent wasn't to have all people read them other than the actors who are performing, but then what if there is a story that only an author is supposed to read yet gets published? We all write stories for ourselves. What if one of those stories got published? Would it be literature?
|
|
|
|
Post by Marina on Jun 10, 2011 12:15:46 GMT -5
It's like no one has any standards for literature in this thread. I refuse to except art as literature. They may have certain similarities, but it's like comparing birds to fish!
|
|
|
|
Post by Dodger Thirteen on Jun 10, 2011 14:43:09 GMT -5
The main difference is that, in pictures, tactics other than words are used. That's a pretty big difference in my book. Literature is the written word. Stating that a picture is literature is nonsense. It's art. There has always been a difference between art and literature, mainly that art is visual whereas literature is written. |
|
|
|
Post by onlyaworkingtitle on Jun 10, 2011 14:53:14 GMT -5
It's like no one has any standards for literature in this thread. I refuse to except art as literature. They may have certain similarities, but it's like comparing birds to fish! BWAHAHA THE MADNESS! THE CHAOS! I love it. PS: Tomatoes. |
|
|
|
Post by onlyaworkingtitle on Jun 10, 2011 14:54:38 GMT -5
The main difference is that, in pictures, tactics other than words are used. That's a pretty big difference in my book. Literature is the written word. Stating that a picture is literature is nonsense. It's art. There has always been a difference between art and literature, mainly that art is visual whereas literature is written. And I'd argue that art is visual whereas literature is verbal -- based on words and language. |
|
|
|
Post by Dodger Thirteen on Jun 10, 2011 15:06:06 GMT -5
That's a pretty big difference in my book. Literature is the written word. Stating that a picture is literature is nonsense. It's art. There has always been a difference between art and literature, mainly that art is visual whereas literature is written. And I'd argue that art is visual whereas literature is verbal -- based on words and language. I would have said verbal, but that implies audio. I still believe that oral traditions are not literature. |
|
