On Unread Books(theparisreview.org)
theparisreview.org
On Unread Books
https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2017/11/02/on-unread-books/
58 comments
> When I saw the title here, I immediately thought of the 2007 book How To Talk About Books You Haven't Read by Pierre Bayard.
I've started speaking about this book with my gf for about 2 or 3 years now, even though I haven't read it (and will not read it in the near future, as my to-read-next list is quite big and always growing). I find it's an excellent book, and much more so as it's recommended by a writer like Eco, a guy who I did actually read (even though that happened 20 years ago, so the details are fuzzy) and who forever influenced my view on books and how to read and interpret them.
I also heartily recommend Poe's "The Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym of Nantucket". I'm not from an English-speaking country so it wasn't required reading for me while in school, but I nevertheless found its no-ending thingie as the quintessence of modern literature. In fact, Eco has often talked about the Gordon Pym story, one of the characters of one of his novels is named exactly like that.
I've started speaking about this book with my gf for about 2 or 3 years now, even though I haven't read it (and will not read it in the near future, as my to-read-next list is quite big and always growing). I find it's an excellent book, and much more so as it's recommended by a writer like Eco, a guy who I did actually read (even though that happened 20 years ago, so the details are fuzzy) and who forever influenced my view on books and how to read and interpret them.
I also heartily recommend Poe's "The Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym of Nantucket". I'm not from an English-speaking country so it wasn't required reading for me while in school, but I nevertheless found its no-ending thingie as the quintessence of modern literature. In fact, Eco has often talked about the Gordon Pym story, one of the characters of one of his novels is named exactly like that.
[deleted]
Strategizing about how to discuss a book you haven't read has to be the ultimate form of pretentiousness.
Or mere utility/functionality (save time not reading some books AND advance your scholarly/literary/etc career as someone who reads and knows them).
A con isn't "pretentious".
People who have actually read a book can be much more pretentious about it -- in the sense of acting as if this gave them some unique insight over other mere mortals who haven't read it.
A con isn't "pretentious".
People who have actually read a book can be much more pretentious about it -- in the sense of acting as if this gave them some unique insight over other mere mortals who haven't read it.
[deleted]
Any book worth reading should be worth reading because of that insight. Which might be a way to say that most words aren't writing, and especially these.
Also a common discipline among students.
Very literally so.
TLDR; the most important thing about a book is it's historical and social context in the web of literature of it's time, so by understanding relationships, peers, and authors, reading the actual text is not necessary
I never heard this about books, but this has always been my understanding of modern art. An entirely-red canvas is meaningless and valueless on its own; but in its context as a response, in a specific cultural time and place, to artistic trends of the time, one particular entirely-red canvas is quite valuable indeed.
It's much more akin to objects (including books!) signed by people: the value of the object is that the object participated in some part of history, rather than anything about the object per se.
It's much more akin to objects (including books!) signed by people: the value of the object is that the object participated in some part of history, rather than anything about the object per se.
I think the challenge of a lot of non-aesthetic art is that the context disappears, but the piece remains, yet without the context the piece is a bit of a certain emperor without his clothing.
A seminal piece of modern art is Duchamps urinal. Apparently, there was a big exhibition in Paris in the early 20th century, and the organizers were a bit snooty, but tried to be progressive, so there were no rules for this exhibition, anything can be art (context: art was at the time narrowly defined as paintings of identifiable subjects in gilded frame, or something like that). Duchamp supposed they weren't totally earnest about that, so he bought a urinal, signed it and submitted it, and sure enough, the organizers rejected it as "not art". He trolled them. Cool, exposing the hipocrites, big deal at the time.
But time has more than caught up with this gag. Exposing hipocrisy today is totally run of the mill, literally daily fare in news, comedy, whatever.
This leaves us with people paying $20 to visit a the MOMA and look solemnly at a 100 year old urinal that has literally zero inherent artistic qualities. That belong in a history museum, not an art museum. Perhaps modern art museums should be understood more as an art history museum, we're there because it feels significant to be physically near a historically significant object, not to enjoy any inherent qualities of the object.
A seminal piece of modern art is Duchamps urinal. Apparently, there was a big exhibition in Paris in the early 20th century, and the organizers were a bit snooty, but tried to be progressive, so there were no rules for this exhibition, anything can be art (context: art was at the time narrowly defined as paintings of identifiable subjects in gilded frame, or something like that). Duchamp supposed they weren't totally earnest about that, so he bought a urinal, signed it and submitted it, and sure enough, the organizers rejected it as "not art". He trolled them. Cool, exposing the hipocrites, big deal at the time.
But time has more than caught up with this gag. Exposing hipocrisy today is totally run of the mill, literally daily fare in news, comedy, whatever.
This leaves us with people paying $20 to visit a the MOMA and look solemnly at a 100 year old urinal that has literally zero inherent artistic qualities. That belong in a history museum, not an art museum. Perhaps modern art museums should be understood more as an art history museum, we're there because it feels significant to be physically near a historically significant object, not to enjoy any inherent qualities of the object.
1. Modern art is an extremely vast field. I really wish this "modern art = scribble drawings" meme would die. Not to mention that modern != contemporary.
2. It's not really that complicated. Writing operates in the exact same way; without the context of our societal language, a novel would just be "meaningless and valueless" as it would simply be a bunch of black symbols on a piece of paper. This would likely be more obvious if we lived in a visually-based society and not a linguistic-based one.
2. It's not really that complicated. Writing operates in the exact same way; without the context of our societal language, a novel would just be "meaningless and valueless" as it would simply be a bunch of black symbols on a piece of paper. This would likely be more obvious if we lived in a visually-based society and not a linguistic-based one.
> Modern art is an extremely vast field. I really wish this "modern art = scribble drawings" meme would die.
Is there a name for the specific kind of modern art that has red canvases, soup cans, and splatter-painting as central examples? I'd be glad to change my usage if there were a clearer term.
> Not to mention that modern != contemporary.
I'm not sure what you mean here; I was using "modern art" to refer specifically to the works of the Modern Art movement—which tended to have a lot of 'scribble-drawings'—rather than more generally to "art made in modern times."
> It's not really that complicated. Writing operates in the exact same way; without the context of our societal language, a novel would just be "meaningless and valueless" as it would simply be a bunch of black symbols on a piece of paper.
This is silly; a book can tell you a story without you needing to know anything about the time and place the book was written in. You need to know the language of the book, yes, but a book with a considerate author will often subtly teach you any jargon it uses, or the significance of cultural signifiers it refers to, etc. This is why outsider protagonists in fiction are so common.
And this is also the point of "annotated editions" of books: authors tend to write assuming their audience will understand their own current cultural milieu, but not that of other cultures or eras. A text that comes from another culture has no value to a layperson from outside that culture, until it is annotated with enough context to make it accessible.
Modern art (or whatever you'd call the subset of the movement that has scribble-drawings as its central referent) is not self-contained in this way, in the sense that people don't expect or require modern art to build in a lens for interpreting it, to consider it "good."
In a world without the "people like owning signed copies of things" effect, I'd expect art that is meaningless without inaccessible-to-laymen cultural context to mostly fail, in the same way unannotated books from foreign cultures fail; and I'd expect such works to succeed exactly to the degree to which the author—or an intermediate, such as a museum curator—went to the effort to create a more complete work that contains both the piece and its cultural context. You know: really long wall tags. Or a documentary video playing beside the exhibited piece.
You do see these, but not very often. Why? Because "art lovers" value being the ones to explain the cultural context to their friends, and value works (and curatory paradigms) that enable this, by avoiding annotation and leaving the works illegible. Thus neatly explaining how the scribble-drawings cluster of works ever achieved popularity at all. "Art snobs", who enjoy—to coin a phrase—artsplaining.
Is there a name for the specific kind of modern art that has red canvases, soup cans, and splatter-painting as central examples? I'd be glad to change my usage if there were a clearer term.
> Not to mention that modern != contemporary.
I'm not sure what you mean here; I was using "modern art" to refer specifically to the works of the Modern Art movement—which tended to have a lot of 'scribble-drawings'—rather than more generally to "art made in modern times."
> It's not really that complicated. Writing operates in the exact same way; without the context of our societal language, a novel would just be "meaningless and valueless" as it would simply be a bunch of black symbols on a piece of paper.
This is silly; a book can tell you a story without you needing to know anything about the time and place the book was written in. You need to know the language of the book, yes, but a book with a considerate author will often subtly teach you any jargon it uses, or the significance of cultural signifiers it refers to, etc. This is why outsider protagonists in fiction are so common.
And this is also the point of "annotated editions" of books: authors tend to write assuming their audience will understand their own current cultural milieu, but not that of other cultures or eras. A text that comes from another culture has no value to a layperson from outside that culture, until it is annotated with enough context to make it accessible.
Modern art (or whatever you'd call the subset of the movement that has scribble-drawings as its central referent) is not self-contained in this way, in the sense that people don't expect or require modern art to build in a lens for interpreting it, to consider it "good."
In a world without the "people like owning signed copies of things" effect, I'd expect art that is meaningless without inaccessible-to-laymen cultural context to mostly fail, in the same way unannotated books from foreign cultures fail; and I'd expect such works to succeed exactly to the degree to which the author—or an intermediate, such as a museum curator—went to the effort to create a more complete work that contains both the piece and its cultural context. You know: really long wall tags. Or a documentary video playing beside the exhibited piece.
You do see these, but not very often. Why? Because "art lovers" value being the ones to explain the cultural context to their friends, and value works (and curatory paradigms) that enable this, by avoiding annotation and leaving the works illegible. Thus neatly explaining how the scribble-drawings cluster of works ever achieved popularity at all. "Art snobs", who enjoy—to coin a phrase—artsplaining.
Is there a name for the specific kind of modern art that has red canvases, soup cans, and splatter-painting as central examples? I'd be glad to change my usage if there were a clearer term.
No, because there is no broad "type" that does such things.
I'm not sure what you mean here; I was using "modern art" to refer specifically to the works of the Modern Art movement—which tended to have a lot of 'scribble-drawings'—rather than more generally to "art made in modern times."
I'm not sure how you are aware of the Modern Art movement but somehow equate it to scribble drawings. You consider Picasso's work to be "scribble drawings"? Art made in the past ±30 years is not considered "modern art", it is considered "contemporary art." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_art
This is silly; a book can tell you a story without you needing to know anything about the time and place the book was written in. You need to know the language of the book, yes, but a book with a considerate author will often subtly teach you any jargon it uses, or the significance of cultural signifiers it refers to, etc. This is why outsider protagonists in fiction are so common.
You're missing my point. The language of the book (English) corresponds to the language of art. A lot of contemporary art is a reaction to things within its own field and cannot be really understood without understanding its context. If you don't understand its context (and have a hostile "they're just art snobs" attitude toward it) then no, you probably won't appreciate it. Not to mention the fact that again, contemporary art is truly a massive field filled with every possible variety of artist and intent, ranging from political statements to pure works of craftsmanship, and everything in between.
Ultimately, contemporary art has its own vocabulary. If you don't bother to learn it, don't expect to understand it. Furthermore, understanding a piece doesn't mean you like it or think it's a good piece of art. Whether contemporary artists should or should not aim to have their work intelligible to laymen is another question entirely.
No, because there is no broad "type" that does such things.
I'm not sure what you mean here; I was using "modern art" to refer specifically to the works of the Modern Art movement—which tended to have a lot of 'scribble-drawings'—rather than more generally to "art made in modern times."
I'm not sure how you are aware of the Modern Art movement but somehow equate it to scribble drawings. You consider Picasso's work to be "scribble drawings"? Art made in the past ±30 years is not considered "modern art", it is considered "contemporary art." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_art
This is silly; a book can tell you a story without you needing to know anything about the time and place the book was written in. You need to know the language of the book, yes, but a book with a considerate author will often subtly teach you any jargon it uses, or the significance of cultural signifiers it refers to, etc. This is why outsider protagonists in fiction are so common.
You're missing my point. The language of the book (English) corresponds to the language of art. A lot of contemporary art is a reaction to things within its own field and cannot be really understood without understanding its context. If you don't understand its context (and have a hostile "they're just art snobs" attitude toward it) then no, you probably won't appreciate it. Not to mention the fact that again, contemporary art is truly a massive field filled with every possible variety of artist and intent, ranging from political statements to pure works of craftsmanship, and everything in between.
Ultimately, contemporary art has its own vocabulary. If you don't bother to learn it, don't expect to understand it. Furthermore, understanding a piece doesn't mean you like it or think it's a good piece of art. Whether contemporary artists should or should not aim to have their work intelligible to laymen is another question entirely.
Context does not add to the fact that the red canvas is still red.
There is no value to the red canvas; there is only value in the conversation you're able to have about the red canvas, and especially value in controlling that conversation (and where/when it happens) by owning the red canvas.
I.e., modern art is valuable in part because people will go to art galleries and museums to stare at denotationally-valueless art if it gives them an excuse to talk/think about art history. Art galleries and museums are willing to buy those pieces to capture that foot-traffic, which gives a price to the pieces.
I.e., modern art is valuable in part because people will go to art galleries and museums to stare at denotationally-valueless art if it gives them an excuse to talk/think about art history. Art galleries and museums are willing to buy those pieces to capture that foot-traffic, which gives a price to the pieces.
> There is no value to the red canvas; there is only value in the conversation you're able to have about the red canvas
You do realize you're a dyed-in-the-wool postmodernist, right?
You do realize you're a dyed-in-the-wool postmodernist, right?
I think it's similar to how software engineers can talk about some language being Turing complete, referencing Kent Beck on TDD, shout out to GoF or even describing a type as boolean, without having read the works in question[1]. The important lessons from these works have diffused into, as you say, our context.
That said, and not having read the book in question ;), I think TFA is to be read in the context of literary professionals, not muggles[2] who read books for the enjoyment of actually reading the book.
1: The Turing paper is supposed to be a very enjoyable read. Needless to say, I haven't actually read it.
2: I haven't read any Harry Potter.
That said, and not having read the book in question ;), I think TFA is to be read in the context of literary professionals, not muggles[2] who read books for the enjoyment of actually reading the book.
1: The Turing paper is supposed to be a very enjoyable read. Needless to say, I haven't actually read it.
2: I haven't read any Harry Potter.
tldr of your comment: book is good, smart is very good
Imo a lot of literature has 0 novel content, so this is not suprising.
Additional: I'm always shitting on the humanities in the comments here. I dont have anything against them, I both produce them and consume massive quantities of them. My point is simply that they are trivial. If all art suddenly disappeared it wouldnt really matter. If knowledge about, and/or the fruits of STEM stuff disappeared it would be a huge setback, it could cause civilization to collapse.
Additional additional: It bugs me how large a percentage of our resources we plow into entertainment.
eg.
"On a global scale, the entertainment and media market was worth 1.72 trillion U.S. dollars in 2015 and is set to rise to 2.14 trillion by 2020"
NASAs current yearly budget is about 18.4 billion
Additional: I'm always shitting on the humanities in the comments here. I dont have anything against them, I both produce them and consume massive quantities of them. My point is simply that they are trivial. If all art suddenly disappeared it wouldnt really matter. If knowledge about, and/or the fruits of STEM stuff disappeared it would be a huge setback, it could cause civilization to collapse.
Additional additional: It bugs me how large a percentage of our resources we plow into entertainment.
eg.
"On a global scale, the entertainment and media market was worth 1.72 trillion U.S. dollars in 2015 and is set to rise to 2.14 trillion by 2020"
NASAs current yearly budget is about 18.4 billion
> If all art suddenly disappeared it wouldnt really matter.
Ugh. This is so arrogant.
Take a step back, talk to some people outside this bubble, of different ages, from different parts of the world, and not just on the internet. Get a sense for how they want to live their lives, for what's important to them. Then come back to this opinion you hold so strongly and question it honestly.
Ugh. This is so arrogant.
Take a step back, talk to some people outside this bubble, of different ages, from different parts of the world, and not just on the internet. Get a sense for how they want to live their lives, for what's important to them. Then come back to this opinion you hold so strongly and question it honestly.
What bubble? Please do tell. I hope you're not arrogantly making assumptions about me.
If all art disappeared, sure almost everyone on the planet would be initially upset and unhappy about it. But we'd just continue to make more, humans make art compulsively and instinctively. Eg. In archaeology the signs of art are often equated with the presence of modern humans. Scientific discovery on the other hand does not come naturally, one must subvert ones natural common sense and intuition and use tools like math and the scientific method. Every discovery is hard fought. Also art has no endgame, with enough science and technology we could create AI, the technological singularity, explore the galaxy, achieve literal immortality. With the best art and the happiest people it would all still certainly be erased by the sun going nova, or even just by a medium sized asteroid.
ps. Heres another one..What if all art more than 50 years old disappeared? Most people mightnt even care or notice.
If all art disappeared, sure almost everyone on the planet would be initially upset and unhappy about it. But we'd just continue to make more, humans make art compulsively and instinctively. Eg. In archaeology the signs of art are often equated with the presence of modern humans. Scientific discovery on the other hand does not come naturally, one must subvert ones natural common sense and intuition and use tools like math and the scientific method. Every discovery is hard fought. Also art has no endgame, with enough science and technology we could create AI, the technological singularity, explore the galaxy, achieve literal immortality. With the best art and the happiest people it would all still certainly be erased by the sun going nova, or even just by a medium sized asteroid.
ps. Heres another one..What if all art more than 50 years old disappeared? Most people mightnt even care or notice.
> Also art has no endgame, with enough science and technology we could create AI, the technological singularity, explore the galaxy, achieve literal immortality.
It sounds like in your scenario art is the endgame. What else will we do with our immortal selves once we've reached technological singularity?
It sounds like in your scenario art is the endgame. What else will we do with our immortal selves once we've reached technological singularity?
Yeah, once we've done that we can relax. Now, when our very survival is in question is not a good time to squander our limited resources on decadence.
..
Its like, youre starving but instead of going out to hunt you spend all day masturbating. Thats us as a species right now :)
..
Its like, youre starving but instead of going out to hunt you spend all day masturbating. Thats us as a species right now :)
[deleted]
I was referring to the Hacker News bubble.
I just think your claims are wrong. Human creativity is instinctual, whether it is applied to artistic or scientific endeavors. You're drawing a bright line that I don't believe exists.
I just think your claims are wrong. Human creativity is instinctual, whether it is applied to artistic or scientific endeavors. You're drawing a bright line that I don't believe exists.
Arts aren't just entertainment. They're a reflection of the soul of a culture and exist long after that culture is dead. If you look at every culture ever recorded in human history, you'll note there is a direct correlation between a culture's progression in art and a culture's progression in science and technology.
That said, I agree with you that most written literature has very little to offer most people. Most pieces of literature bear that designation because they are "teachable" in one form or another. Some are chosen because they perfect one very specific aspect of the craft of writing. Others, like Finnegan's Wake, are like P vs NP in that they provide an infinitely complex problem for intelligent minds to spend lifetimes chewing on without ever reaching a conclusion.
Something else to keep in mind: the medium is the message. The medium a piece of art chooses is significant. TV and movies will rot your brain regardless of whether it's The Big Bang Theory or Citizen Kane. Reading will improve your brain, regardless of whether you're reading Danielle Steel or Chaucer.
That said, I agree with you that most written literature has very little to offer most people. Most pieces of literature bear that designation because they are "teachable" in one form or another. Some are chosen because they perfect one very specific aspect of the craft of writing. Others, like Finnegan's Wake, are like P vs NP in that they provide an infinitely complex problem for intelligent minds to spend lifetimes chewing on without ever reaching a conclusion.
Something else to keep in mind: the medium is the message. The medium a piece of art chooses is significant. TV and movies will rot your brain regardless of whether it's The Big Bang Theory or Citizen Kane. Reading will improve your brain, regardless of whether you're reading Danielle Steel or Chaucer.
> TV and movies will rot your brain regardless of whether it's The Big Bang Theory or Citizen Kane.
I cannot agree with that at all. A great deal of cinema is heavy enough on information to be educational. Think about how much you can learn about history, literature, economics, or politics from watching Jean-Luc Godard’s output from 1962-1968. Even if the medium has flaws in the depth of its presentation, its compilation of citations to important literature that can then be followed up, can be invaluable.
And aren't plays reading? And do they really lose the goodness they have as "reading" when they move from the written page to a performance that just happens to be captured on film instead of before a live audience?
I cannot agree with that at all. A great deal of cinema is heavy enough on information to be educational. Think about how much you can learn about history, literature, economics, or politics from watching Jean-Luc Godard’s output from 1962-1968. Even if the medium has flaws in the depth of its presentation, its compilation of citations to important literature that can then be followed up, can be invaluable.
And aren't plays reading? And do they really lose the goodness they have as "reading" when they move from the written page to a performance that just happens to be captured on film instead of before a live audience?
You're talking content. I'm talking neurobiology.
“rot your brain”?
Like.... little worms will be transmitted directly through the screen, and a bad smell will start pouring out your ears?
Give us a break.
Visual storytelling is fundamentally different from pure linguistic storytelling. It has much higher bandwidth, so it provides a richer set of simultaneous messages (in some ways similar to an opera or stage play or puppet show, but with even more flexibility over the visual content), but also causes a forced progression through time that makes it not as easily amenable to skimming, reading out of order, re-reading, cross-referencing, or pausing to write direct responses to the text.
But there’s a huge amount to learn and appreciate in visual stories. The best visual stories are incomparably better than the worst written schlock, and vice versa.
Like.... little worms will be transmitted directly through the screen, and a bad smell will start pouring out your ears?
Give us a break.
Visual storytelling is fundamentally different from pure linguistic storytelling. It has much higher bandwidth, so it provides a richer set of simultaneous messages (in some ways similar to an opera or stage play or puppet show, but with even more flexibility over the visual content), but also causes a forced progression through time that makes it not as easily amenable to skimming, reading out of order, re-reading, cross-referencing, or pausing to write direct responses to the text.
But there’s a huge amount to learn and appreciate in visual stories. The best visual stories are incomparably better than the worst written schlock, and vice versa.
Can you elaborate? post some links or references? Sounds interesting.
Here's a decent article to start with: https://journal.thriveglobal.com/how-books-and-television-af...
If you do some searching, you'll find lots of ink spilled on the subject of "does TV rot your brain" and the cognitive benefits of reading.
If you do some searching, you'll find lots of ink spilled on the subject of "does TV rot your brain" and the cognitive benefits of reading.
The article you link to speaks about television, not cinema. Furthermore, its claim that the visual medium encourages passivity:
"you can just sit back and watch everything unfold without effort on your part. You’re less likely to pause to reflect on what’s happening."
does not apply to the considerable number of filmmakers (and occasional television content producers) who employ Brechtian alienation techniques.
"you can just sit back and watch everything unfold without effort on your part. You’re less likely to pause to reflect on what’s happening."
does not apply to the considerable number of filmmakers (and occasional television content producers) who employ Brechtian alienation techniques.
Don't be dense. That sentence is from the reporter trying to make a study easier to understand to the common folk. Actually read the study referenced. There are also other studies that compare content and find it doesn't make a difference on the impact of the brain.
Just an idea,,
Maybe all TV input looks the same to us, as regards its effect on the brain, but in reality its not..
Our tools for measuring anything to do with the brain/cognition are extremely crude currently.
eg. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/scicurious-brain/ignobe...
To use computers as an analogy. If you were to examine it only physically, a hard drive filled with random garbage would look the same as one filled with our greatest works.
eg. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/scicurious-brain/ignobe...
To use computers as an analogy. If you were to examine it only physically, a hard drive filled with random garbage would look the same as one filled with our greatest works.
What's your motivation behind this comment? Do you really want to live in a world where some of humanity's greatest achievements are seen the same as random garbage? In any case, current brain scans are crude, but they measure function, not data. It's like putting an ammeter over an ethernet cable. You're not going to be able to see the data flowing over the wire, but you'll definitely be able to tell that data isn't flowing when it should be. You can also physically inspect a computer and see when a capacitor has blown.
"the medium is the message. The medium a piece of art chooses is significant. TV and movies will rot your brain regardless of whether it's The Big Bang Theory or Citizen Kane. Reading will improve your brain, regardless of whether you're reading Danielle Steel or Chaucer."
I have not heard that before.
The medium a piece of art chooses is significant, yes, (and in a lot of cases the creator chooses the wrong medium, eg. there are plenty of computer games out there that really want to be films, they dont make use of the strengths of the medium and even fight against it.)
The rest, I dont agree with.
Imo big bang, citizen kane, danielle Steel and chaucer are all somewhat equatable, because they are all fiction/entertainment. Personally I'd rate something educational or non-fiction over fiction in any medium
I have not heard that before.
The medium a piece of art chooses is significant, yes, (and in a lot of cases the creator chooses the wrong medium, eg. there are plenty of computer games out there that really want to be films, they dont make use of the strengths of the medium and even fight against it.)
The rest, I dont agree with.
Imo big bang, citizen kane, danielle Steel and chaucer are all somewhat equatable, because they are all fiction/entertainment. Personally I'd rate something educational or non-fiction over fiction in any medium
You're making the mistake of thinking that all fiction is entertainment. It's not. There's a reason humans are hard wired to share stories.
> Imo big bang, citizen kane, danielle Steel and chaucer are all somewhat equatable, because they are all fiction/entertainment.
It doesn't work that way. The medium has an impact on the formation and development of the brain itself.
> Imo big bang, citizen kane, danielle Steel and chaucer are all somewhat equatable, because they are all fiction/entertainment.
It doesn't work that way. The medium has an impact on the formation and development of the brain itself.
So are you talking about exposure to certain mediums at certain ages?
>My point is simply that they are trivial. If all art suddenly disappeared it wouldnt really matter. If knowledge about, and/or the fruits of STEM stuff disappeared it would be a huge setback, it could cause civilization to collapse.
I'd say it's mostly the opposite: civilization is what remains when you remove most of the STEM -- and culture surely is that.
We could be savage warmongering apes with fully advanced STEM. And we often are.
I'd say it's mostly the opposite: civilization is what remains when you remove most of the STEM -- and culture surely is that.
We could be savage warmongering apes with fully advanced STEM. And we often are.
How much less of a budget would NASA get without entertainment such as Star Wars to fire people's imagination?
Donald Norman in "Things That Make Us Smart" points out distinguishing between education and entertainment is not impossible but difficult. Artworks are performance outputs like proofs or designs. Then there are material sciences of their realizations and reproductions. We heroize the lone artist but artworks are social "supply chain" creations. For whatever reasons, outside the weekly pop charts for advertising attentions, we rearrange shelves of old and new artworks we consider exemplary in some regard. Kids study the outcomes and techniques both and keep remaking the present. The fictional novel, moving picture fiction "talkie" and lyric 3 minute tune are very specific genres. I imagine there are folks here who might credibly argue specific computers games are exemplary artworks worthy of study and emulation. "Humanities" along with many other of our departmental labels is not such a great term of art.
I'm surprised I haven't heard this point of view before. In the past I've often thought that the amount of value I get from enjoying the humanities is _completely_ disproportionate to the amount I pay for them. The majority of my leisure time is spent consuming art. But if I told someone that I spend $1000/yr purchasing music, they would likely be a little surprised. At the very least I would be an outlier. But I can relate to the other point of view that there is a _lot_ of other work being done today that enables the humanities to be enjoyed in the first place, so maybe valuing the direct product of the humanities at only $500-$1000/yr isn't _that_ far away from their true value.
I'm still not entirely convinced, but it's true that if the sharing of art vanished, I would find other ways to fill the gap without a huge amount of trouble (thought likely a large chunk of that would be me creating art for myself)
I'm still not entirely convinced, but it's true that if the sharing of art vanished, I would find other ways to fill the gap without a huge amount of trouble (thought likely a large chunk of that would be me creating art for myself)
I get your point about disappearing art being reproducible, but I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the role art has played for humans throughout our existence.
Not only does art greatly enhances the enjoyment of life, it's been a critically important survival tool throughout human history and pre-history. Even for primitive humans, art was used to help record and offload and pass on critical information through stories, waypoints/maps, and artworks. Our appreciation for beautiful forms, structures, rhythms, etc, is an evolutionary adaptation that helps us arouse interest and fascination with our world, inspiring us on to greater things and ultimately increasing our survival. This is why our appreciation of natural beauty and art is universal across cultures and time. Many have written and talked about these ideas. STEM doesn't happen without art.
Technology, on the other hand, has put us and our planet on the brink of extinction. Obviously we are now 'all in' on STEM for the survival of modern civilization, but there are a lot of people living in the world today who may disagree about the fruits of progress.
Not only does art greatly enhances the enjoyment of life, it's been a critically important survival tool throughout human history and pre-history. Even for primitive humans, art was used to help record and offload and pass on critical information through stories, waypoints/maps, and artworks. Our appreciation for beautiful forms, structures, rhythms, etc, is an evolutionary adaptation that helps us arouse interest and fascination with our world, inspiring us on to greater things and ultimately increasing our survival. This is why our appreciation of natural beauty and art is universal across cultures and time. Many have written and talked about these ideas. STEM doesn't happen without art.
Technology, on the other hand, has put us and our planet on the brink of extinction. Obviously we are now 'all in' on STEM for the survival of modern civilization, but there are a lot of people living in the world today who may disagree about the fruits of progress.
Need less STEM power, need more STEA(rt)M power ;)
Not everything we produce needs to be valued by how much they contribute to industrial/scientific civilization. I specify that because loss of much of STEM won't lead to collapse of civilization, it will only set us back to the dark ages. We'll begin again. Same as we'd do if all art disappeared.
Its not the same. If all existing art disappeared we would still be able to produce art at our current rate with no discernible or measurable difference in its quality or effect.
Scientific or technological progress on the other hand is iterative. More advanced theories are slowly formulated on the backs of older ones. For precision tools for example you need to start off building crude tools with nothing, then use those to build the infrastructure that will allow you to build slightly more precise tools and so on.
"Its not the same. If all existing art disappeared we would still be able to produce art at our current rate with no discernible or measurable difference in its quality or effect."
That's a very strange idea.
If all existing novels dissappeared do you think we would produce novels straight away?
If all painting dissappeared would we paint with perspective, or in abstract, or just go for rough cave type paintings?
How long would it take us to come up with rhyming metre, or the observational essay, cinema or stand-up?
You think we'd start from having no references and create this immediately?
That's a very strange idea.
If all existing novels dissappeared do you think we would produce novels straight away?
If all painting dissappeared would we paint with perspective, or in abstract, or just go for rough cave type paintings?
How long would it take us to come up with rhyming metre, or the observational essay, cinema or stand-up?
You think we'd start from having no references and create this immediately?
Maybe rhyming metre would never be recreated. In some cultures it wasnt. The phase space for what will entertain humans is seemingly almost infinitely detailed, there is no wrong or right way to do it. Eg. people can dance to banging rocks together just as effectively as to Mozart.
On the other hand, there is only one Pythagoras' theorem, and an infinitude of similar incorrect theorems. We postulate that intelligent aliens should discover Pythagoras' theorem but not Jazz or De Stijl.
On the other hand, there is only one Pythagoras' theorem, and an infinitude of similar incorrect theorems. We postulate that intelligent aliens should discover Pythagoras' theorem but not Jazz or De Stijl.
They're not the same I agree. Which is why saying art is trivial and by implication disposable as compared to science is not IMO a healthy way to look at it. They are two sides of the same coin the way I see it. Through both we ultimately seek to understand reality inside and outside ourselves. I mean think about... why do we look at the stars? Why do we want to visit other planets? Why do we want to understand molecules and atoms? It's not all for the mere utility of being able to control materials and forces and therefore make our lives physically comfortable, though it's obviously a very important side effect. The core reason is we want to understand the meaning & beauty underlying reality, and art tries to do the same in a different way. So the way I see it, loss of STEM knowledge will set us back materially, while loss of all art and philosophy will set us back equally grievously in another sense.
I read a lot of books. Is that really better than watching TV? I have my doubts.
Inasmuch as cable TV is art, it would cause riots.
It's comments like these that remind me why I don't work in Silicon Valley.
"If all art suddenly disappeared it wouldnt really matter."
A lot of art inspires people.
How many young men saw that movie about Facebook, and didn't want to become the next billionaire?
Art influences the masses. Sometimes for the better, and sometimes for the worst. That FB movie for the worse, in my world, but I felt that eay about Disco, and Cowboy hats that Travolta brough upon us.
Art is everywhere. Now if we lost Banksy I don't think we would unravel.
A lot of art inspires people.
How many young men saw that movie about Facebook, and didn't want to become the next billionaire?
Art influences the masses. Sometimes for the better, and sometimes for the worst. That FB movie for the worse, in my world, but I felt that eay about Disco, and Cowboy hats that Travolta brough upon us.
Art is everywhere. Now if we lost Banksy I don't think we would unravel.
I don't always enjoy the books I've read, but i always enjoy those that I haven't. People never ask me for recommendations. In spite of this, I generously provide my unwanted opinion.
I've felt a very small version of this in watching certain movies. When I saw Stand By Me, I understood Stranger Things and Super 8 a lot more.
For sure, context can have a multiplicative effect on the value of a text. This article seems to be arguing that context is the value itself, which doesn't quite ring true to me.
Bayard's book is a masterpiece; I found it hilarious and recommended it to a friend, who has taken to it so much he buys copies for others and often uses “Bayardian” as an adjective. All the stuff surrounding the book only add to its enjoyment (after you've read it), such as the fact that there was a question mark in the original title which went away in the translation, the author's coy refusal to say whether he was serious or joking, and his insistence in interviews that the opinions in the book are not his own but that of a fictionalized persona…
I think I found this book because it was highly rated on the interesting complete review site (its review of this book is here: http://www.complete-review.com/reviews/books/bayardp.htm). Not everyone is likely to enjoy this book (some found it pointless), but worth taking a look.