Do you think too much pop/rock music can be a waste of time?

[Parsifal]

Yes. Extremely poor literary skills, abysmal ignorance of history, abundant factual errors --- calling DB an artist is an insult to art.

Can you produce any text that anyone on earth would pay one penny to read?

[Harry]

Yes. Extremely poor literary skills, abysmal ignorance of history, abundant factual errors --- calling DB an artist is an insult to art.

The book was a piece of hyped bull, but the film I enjoyed, that is the first one, the follow up was not noteworthy .

[Florestan]

[TDVC] was a captivating thriller/detective story [...]

it was fascinating.

If you find TDVC captivating and fascinating then I wonder what bores you.

It is no less art than Sherlock Holmes or Poirot.

Arthur Conan Doyle and Agatha Christie had literary and story-telling skills of a level DB cannot even begin to dream of.

Can you produce any text that anyone on earth would pay one penny to read?

First, DB´s example shows that one doesn´t have to have any particular skills or knowledge to sell, and sell big time. It´s all about marketing, actually. Just pick up an "esoteric" topic, preferably related to the "sinister secrets" of the Catholic Church and after you´re done writing whatever you fancy on the subject, find a clever literary agent. Success guaranteed.

Second, although I dabble in writing (mostly poetry) for my own pleasure and without any intention to make money out of it, I don´t have to be a writer myself in order to be able to assess the literary merits (or lack thereof, in this case) of a book. If that were the case, then GMG should better close shop, because only a very tiny fraction of the members are composers, so all others, you included, are not entitled to speak about music.

[Madiel]

Yes. Extremely poor literary skills, abysmal ignorance of history, abundant factual errors --- calling DB an artist is an insult to art.

Then just call him a writer. And call it a book rather than literature.

We could spend all month unpacking those "higher" labels, but at the end of the day people are going to keep reading books, watching films and listening to music. Those are pretty much descriptions of the particular mediums of communication/expression.

I don't think most people are terribly bothered by whether what they enjoy reading, watching or listening constitutes "art".

[Karl Henning]

DB may not claim to be an artist (not that I know).  More likely, his agent might . . . but that would be marketing.

[Florestan]

Then just call him a writer. And call it a book rather than literature.

Nice distinction, and I mean it. Makes a lot of sense.

I don't think most people are terribly bothered by whether what they enjoy reading, watching or listening constitutes "art".

They surely aren´t. But then again why are they obviously terribly bothered when someone points out that what they enjoy reading does not meet the most basic requirements of constituting art?

[Monsieur Croche]

What would YOU change in Boheme, Butterfly or Tosca to make them better?

Press Delete to permanently remove all extant scores and recordings?


Best regards.

[Monsieur Croche]

DB may not claim to be an artist (not that I know).  More likely, his agent might . . . but that would be marketing.

"Artists" are those people who make some sort of visual images -- or more lately, artists are pop performers, or artistes :-)

The word is now pretty useless since it has for some while been appropriated and used by the pop music industry -- not because there are no more artists (we can save that latter moaning for those who regularly pronounce there is no classical music after the death of Beethoven, or Wagner, or another German, or after 1900, 1945 etc. ad tedium ad nauseum :-)

[nathanb]

is just pretentious pseudo-artistic pseudo-philosophical shit, would I not be labeled "an arrogant asshole"?

The sad truth is that this whole "everything-goes, everyone-is-an-artist, there-is-no-objective-greatness-or-bullshit-in-art" crap is pervasive in the contemporary culture, and it is an equally sad reflection on the selfsame culture that anyone daring to question this pop(ular) consensus is automatically equated with a racist or a Nazi.

Interesting that this all started because Florestan expressed the desire not to be labeled or judged. He then went on to show his true colors as the most judgmental person in the thread, painting with a broad brush, insulting people left and right.

I am glad to have this tiny bit of irony to comfort me, or I'd be really offended.

[Parsifal]

They surely aren´t. But then again why are they obviously terribly bothered when someone points out that what they enjoy reading does not meet the most basic requirements of constituting art?

Who said they are?  Why is it that people feel there is a need to go around pointing out that things other people like "isn't really art," evidently to assert their superior taste.

[Madiel]

But then again why are they obviously terribly bothered when someone points out that what they enjoy reading does not meet the most basic requirements of constituting art?

It doesn't take much insight to realise that if you actually go out of your way to point out that what a person is enjoying "does not meet the most basic requirements of constituting art", knowing full well that that's what the person is reading (or listening or whatever), it's not going to come across as a statement about the book or the music, it's going to come across as a statement about the person you're busy lecturing.

I mean, seriously, you're again heading down the way of making objective declarative statements. You're not saying that you don't care for this book or this music, you're declaring that it objectively isn't up to scratch. And you're declaring it to someone who actually, before you came along, was enjoying themselves.

Why do it, if not to put that person in their place and to "correct" them? Aren't you trying to change their tastes to suit your standards?

I don't actually have a problem with people expressing their view that one thing is great, or art, and another is not. We ask reviewers/critics to do it all the time, I don't see why other people can't do it to. But a critic writes a general opinion for anyone to read. They don't march up to an individual, look at what the person is reading / listening to / has just bought a ticket for and say "that's crap".

And so critics don't generate the subtext that you're generating when you choose a particular person's thing as the thing to "review". You're not reviewing the thing in the abstract in that situation, you're reviewing that person's connection to the thing - their enjoyment of it - and passing judgement on that connection.

[Parsifal]

It doesn't take much insight to realise that if you actually go out of your way to point out that what a person is enjoying "does not meet the most basic requirements of constituting art", knowing full well that that's what the person is reading (or listening or whatever), it's not going to come across as a statement about the book or the music, it's going to come across as a statement about the person you're busy lecturing.

That's the crux of it.

First, DB´s example shows that one doesn´t have to have any particular skills or knowledge to sell, and sell big time. It´s all about marketing, actually. Just pick up an "esoteric" topic, preferably related to the "sinister secrets" of the Catholic Church and after you´re done writing whatever you fancy on the subject, find a clever literary agent. Success guaranteed.

This has to be one of the more absurd statements I've seen on this board. You think that Dan Brown has no skills, but wrote a book that sold 80 million copies?  It is a guaranteed formula?  Finding the formula (essentially creating a new genre) took no talent? Anyone could have done it, although nobody did? The worse the book is, the better it sells?  Somehow that seems too easy.

[Monsieur Croche]

Interesting that this all started because Florestan expressed the desire not to be labeled or judged. He then went on to show his true colors as the most judgmental person in the thread, painting with a broad brush, insulting people left and right.

I am glad to have this tiny bit of irony to comfort me, or I'd be really offended.

I long ago thought it is impossible for any one to not be a cartoon of something. 

Some do seem to excel at it, though ;-)

[Florestan]

It doesn't take much insight to realise that if you actually go out of your way to point out that what a person is enjoying "does not meet the most basic requirements of constituting art", knowing full well that that's what the person is reading (or listening or whatever), it's not going to come across as a statement about the book or the music, it's going to come across as a statement about the person you're busy lecturing.

Oh, please, orfeo, you surely know much better than that.

If I say "Dan Brown´s novels are extremely badly written and basically every page is an exhibition of factual errors" it does not follow, nor do I imply, that all people enjoyng DB´s books are themselves stupid, or have no historical knowledge or cannot get their facts straight.

The problem is not with my statement, but with those who equate it with "All Dan Brown´s readers are morons".

A typical non sequitur.

You think that Dan Brown has no skills, but wrote a book that sold 80 million copies?

Yes, that´s exactly what I think: Dan Brown has absolutely no literary skills whatsoever, zero, zip, nada de nada ---yet he wrote several best-sellers. There is no contradiction between the two facts, except for those who equate "best-selling" with "skilful" or "quality".

[]  It is a guaranteed formula?  Finding the formula (essentially creating a new genre) took no talent?

Dan Brown created a new genre? Oh, please, spare me! The intellectual thriller is the creation of Umberto Eco and he is from another, far away galaxy than DB. Eco´s literary artistry and his deep knowledge of the topics he wrote about would give DB a permanent headache if he actually read Eco´s novels.

The worse the book is, the better it sells?

Why are you so astonished, I wonder? Ignorance sells way better than knowledge.

[Florestan]

And now, if you´ll excuse me, gentlemen, I have just realized, way much later than I should have had, that I have better things to do than to continue being involved in this sterile and inconsequential kerfuffle. I´m over and out for good.

[Madiel]

Oh please, Florestan, surely you know better than to assume that communication is perfect and that whatever YOU intend or imply is what people are going to hear, or if they hear something different it's all their fault.

I described how such statements come across. Not what you intended such statements to mean. You lack the insight to recognise the importance of the difference.