|
|
Post by onlyaworkingtitle on Jun 10, 2011 15:09:14 GMT -5
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. And you still haven't said your stance on plays. Is the script literature, but the play not? Many plays have unpublished scripts; most screenplays are unpublished. Yet the literary study of film is often taught as an English and/or Literature course. |
|
|
|
Post by Dodger Thirteen on Jun 10, 2011 15:40:35 GMT -5
I would have said verbal, but that implies audio. I still believe that oral traditions are not literature. And you still haven't said your stance on plays. Is the script literature, but the play not? Many plays have unpublished scripts; most screenplays are unpublished. Yet the literary study of film is often taught as an English and/or Literature course. I wasn't aware that stating my stance on plays was a requirement for this thread. That being said, I believe I stated earlier that I agree that the play - in the written form - is literature, yes. |
|
|
|
Post by iamahexagon on Jun 10, 2011 16:01:21 GMT -5
So, I decided to look up the word "literature" in a dictionary: (from thefreedictionary.com/literature)
literature n.
1. The body of written works of a language, period, or culture.
2. Imaginative or creative writing, especially of recognized artistic value: "Literature must be an analysis of experience and a synthesis of the findings into a unity" (Rebecca West).
3. The art or occupation of a literary writer.
4. The body of written work produced by scholars or researchers in a given field: medical literature.
5. Printed material: collected all the available literature on the subject.
6. Music All the compositions of a certain kind or for a specific instrument or ensemble: the symphonic literature.
People assume that literature is imagination to paper, canvas, ect. But, if we look at it from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint, literature is more like a big ball of wibbly-wobbly writey-writer stuff.
|
|
|
|
Post by Marina on Jun 10, 2011 16:03:49 GMT -5
We tried incorporating a definition from an actual dictionary on page 7, I think. I didn't work.
Nice Doctor Who reference!
|
|
|
|
Post by Eternal Lobster on Jun 10, 2011 18:38:39 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. So where would books like "Important Artifacts and Personal Property from the Collection of Lenore Doolan and Harold Morris" fall under? It's formatted to be an auction guide of the property that belonged to the couple that has broken up. But it is done in such a way that it tells the story, beginning to end, of their relationship, even though it is just pictures and small descriptions of the items being sold. It's a brilliant book, but is it art or literature? I guess you might have to read it to understand what it is like in order to define it, but I am curious about what you think. Edit: Amazon has some pictures of it here: www.amazon.com/Important-Artifacts-Personal-Collection-Including/dp/0374175306 |
|
|
|
Post by iamahexagon on Jun 10, 2011 23:03:10 GMT -5
So where would books like "Important Artifacts and Personal Property from the Collection of Lenore Doolan and Harold Morris" fall under? It's formatted to be an auction guide of the property that belonged to the couple that has broken up. But it is done in such a way that it tells the story, beginning to end, of their relationship, even though it is just pictures and small descriptions of the items being sold. It's a brilliant book, but is it art or literature? I guess you might have to read it to understand what it is like in order to define it, but I am curious about what you think. Edit: Amazon has some pictures of it here: www.amazon.com/Important-Artifacts-Personal-Collection-Including/dp/0374175306Wow. That's quite a quandary. I'm going to say that it is literature because its purpose is to tell a story, not just to show off art. |
|
|
|
Post by cyanea on Jun 10, 2011 23:09:46 GMT -5
I'm going to agree with Marina. Sometimes you can see text in art or vice-versa, and they sometimes share themes and methods of analysis, but I'm hesitant to call the Mona Lisa a piece of literature.
It'd be like comparing television shows to movies...they do similar things, and in some ways can be analyzed in the same way, but each has their own set of rules and expectations, and function differently.
|
|
|
|
Post by Marina on Jun 10, 2011 23:25:44 GMT -5
Like I've already said. If a picture coincides with a text, like a poem or a play, it can be considered literature, but only as a package, not separately.
I'm done with this picture business. My bullshit senses are tingling.
What are some books (I'm limiting it to just books, to make it easier) that you (just you) guys actually consider literature?
( NO TOMATOES OR PHONEBOOKS!)
I name Sherlock Holmes.
I shall not say why just yet.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fuck Yeah Dion on Jun 10, 2011 23:39:18 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. I'm not quite comfortable with the assertion that all literature must be written. Edit: To go further into detail, oppressive cultures use language to determine reason, a pattern that leads to terminal forms of power (for example, black people were thought to be less than human because they couldn't reason, and they were thought to not be able to reason because they had no written language). By saying literature must be written is to exclude scores of populations from the literary canon. |
|
|
|
Post by Marina on Jun 11, 2011 0:13:22 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. I'm not quite comfortable with the assertion that all literature must be written. Edit: To go further into detail, oppressive cultures use language to determine reason, a pattern that leads to terminal forms of power (for example, black people were thought to be less than human because they couldn't reason, and they were thought to not be able to reason because they had no written language). By saying literature must be written is to exclude scores of populations from the literary canon. Like who and what? |
|
|
|
Post by Eternal Lobster on Jun 11, 2011 0:42:29 GMT -5
I'm done with this picture business. My bullshit senses are tingling. What are some books (I'm limiting it to just books, to make it easier) that you (just you) guys actually consider literature? I name Sherlock Holmes. I shall not say why just yet. Hey, hey, hey, don't get snappy, some of us have not had 24/7 access to the internet and want to partake in the discussion still. I think not listing your reasons as to why Sherlock Holmes is a wee bit suspicious. Afraid to be challenged and shot down? :P |
|
|
|
Post by Marina on Jun 11, 2011 0:55:45 GMT -5
I'm done with this picture business. My bullshit senses are tingling. What are some books (I'm limiting it to just books, to make it easier) that you (just you) guys actually consider literature? I name Sherlock Holmes. I shall not say why just yet. Hey, hey, hey, don't get snappy, some of us have not had 24/7 access to the internet and want to partake in the discussion still. I think not listing your reasons as to why Sherlock Holmes is a wee bit suspicious. Afraid to be challenged and shot down? :P Psshh, no. I just wanted to offer a different argument. I feel like it's time to just name something reasonable, and see where it goes. Fine I'll offer something: Sherlock Holmes is an iconic character, who survived the test of time, remaining very popular with the ever changing generations. As proven by continuing adaptations of the novels into countless movies, games, and TV series; all in multiple languages. I know he's fairly canon, but I like Sherlock Holmes, he was my first literary crush. :P |
|
|
|
Post by Fuck Yeah Dion on Jun 11, 2011 0:58:19 GMT -5
I'm not quite comfortable with the assertion that all literature must be written. Edit: To go further into detail, oppressive cultures use language to determine reason, a pattern that leads to terminal forms of power (for example, black people were thought to be less than human because they couldn't reason, and they were thought to not be able to reason because they had no written language). By saying literature must be written is to exclude scores of populations from the literary canon. Like who and what? Like the mythology of Native Americans, African cultures, aboriginal Australians, etc. Isn't it incredibly orientalist to think that these cultures' stories didn't count as literature until white people were kind enough to write them down? |
|
|
|
Post by Marina on Jun 11, 2011 1:10:09 GMT -5
Like the mythology of Native Americans, African cultures, aboriginal Australians, etc. Isn't it incredibly orientalist to think that these cultures' stories didn't count as literature until white people were kind enough to write them down? Oral stories are kind of like audio books, except they went straight to audio without being released in print. (kind of like movies straight to DVD) And what's so bad about the white people writing those stories down? If the natives of whatever country did not believe in writing down their stories, why is it a bad thing for another culture to write it down? For one thing, it was probably done by anthropologists or historians who wanted to preserve the culture, not make the natives feel inferior because they don't write. Another thing is that a lot of those stories would have been lost if they weren't written down. Which is how they become literature. |
|
|
|
Post by Fuck Yeah Dion on Jun 11, 2011 1:20:02 GMT -5
Like the mythology of Native Americans, African cultures, aboriginal Australians, etc. Isn't it incredibly orientalist to think that these cultures' stories didn't count as literature until white people were kind enough to write them down? Oral stories are kind of like audio books, except they went straight to audio without being released in print. (kind of like movies straight to DVD) And what's so bad about the white people writing those stories down? If the natives of whatever country did not believe in writing down their stories, why is it a bad thing for another culture to write it down? For one thing, it was probably done by anthropologists or historians who wanted to preserve the culture, not make the natives feel inferior because they don't write. Another thing is that a lot of those stories would have been lost if they weren't written down. Which is how they become literature. There's nothing wrong with writing them down. It's the attitude I take offense with, for a bunch of white people to say a culture has only gained literature through said white people. It co-op's culture. |
|
