|
Against Armchair Literature (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Lira |
| I mentioned your post in my reply to Arbiter, Jenny. It's not what I have in mind ;) |
|
|
| Meat187 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Not really. I don't want science to be above art. I want science and art to join hands and walk on the beach. I want art and science to become companions, not enemies. I want science and art to engage in a lustful, lascivious, lewd, libidinous, amorous, lickerish, libertine, fulsome, lecherous, concupiscent, carnal, ruttish, salacious exchange of fluids, ideas and concepts whenever possible.
But art can be devoid of science, of course. Otherwise there would be no fantastic fiction, would there? |
See, and I want art to kick science in the balls whenever it feels like it. Yes, I want Dan Brown to lie to me, to tell me his twisted conspiracy crap and convince me its really true. Because that's what good literature does, it forces the author's vision upon the reader. That Dan Brown's ideas, despite being wrong, gained more popularity than any serious research on the subject matter is not his problem but rather an achievement. Contrarily, the serious researchers failed to make anything out of their stuff, despite having the truth on their side. Losers! And when people start believing some wrong theory from literature it's again an achievement for literature and people's fault for being gullible. The author should not write more scientifically, the reader should switch his brain on and either take fiction as fiction or verify the information he gets from there. |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
| What I cant stand is when fiction tries to get technical and is off on certain things. If you are going to attempt to reference things that are factual or real then at least get them right. It can ruin the readers immersion in my opinion. |
|
|
| Meat187 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
What I cant stand is when fiction tries to get technical and is off on certain things. If you are going to attempt to reference things that are factual or real then at least get them right. It can ruin the readers immersion in my opinion. |
It depends: if it's some specific nerdy detail that only you of all readers know about then stop nitpicking. If it's something that Google could have clarified in a couple of seconds then the author is a lazy dick. |
|
|
| Lira |
This is just the intro so you can understand why I'm posting this here. The rest of his post is absolutely hilarious :stongue:
| quote: | Thick Books and Thin Films
Last week, I learned about the pioneering research of Dr. Katherine Solomon. The head of her own privately funded lab within an unused storage pod at the Smithsonian, Solomon’s work in noetic science promises to make the supernatural tangible. Through her research, we have learned that shared thoughts can attract objects, that the soul has measurable mass, and that humankind holds the ability to awaken its own primal wisdom and achieve godlike feats. Visiting her lab requires a creepy, 90-second walk through pitch darkness that no one has yet discovered how to alleviate because flashlights apparently do not exist.
Dr. Solomon, of course, is an invention of The Da Vinci Code author Dan Brown. She plays the role of the intelligent, driven, slightly flirtatious female companion to Harvard University symbologist Robert Langdon in the novel The Lost Symbol. Apparently, Brown had forgotten that Langdon already had an intelligent, driven, slightly flirtatious female companion in each of his two previous novels.
I’m not proud that I read this book. But I live in Washington, D.C., and The Lost Symbol promised to reveal all kinds of architectural and Freemasonic tidbits about my home city, so I figured I’d throw literary caution to the wind and give it a try. Whether the symbology and ancient whatnot are valid, I don’t know. But wow: The science was pure bull crap.
I know this is going to happen whenever I read a popular novel or watch a popular film or TV show. I know the science will be laughably dubious. I know that this fact, for me, will overshadow any legitimate merit the piece has. I know I’ll find myself screaming, “YOU MORONS! HOW CAN YOU LAND A SPACESHIP ON A SPINNING ASTEROID? HOW CAN YOU SYNTHESIZE AN ANTISERUM IN AN HOUR? WHY DOESN’T IRON MAN BANG HIS HEAD ON THE INSIDE OF THE SUIT?”
I don’t blame novelists and filmmakers for not understanding what scientists actually do. After all, I don’t understand what lawyers do, and if I had to make assumptions based on television, I’d assume they just yell “Objection!”, tap folders on desks to straighten them into a pile, and say things like, “No further questions,” but say them slyly, indicating that there really are further questions. Oh, snap!
Still, you’d think they’d at least show their finished work to a real scientist once, just to check. |
[Source] |
|
|
| pointPi |
Jackpot In My Pants, finally someone on this forum who I can fully agree with! Glad to see System-J is on Team Lira as well. :)
As Lira said, science is not an objective view on reality, but rather an instruction manual on how to use reality. There is no such thing as truth. Objectivity is just the collective combination of all possible subjectivities.
In my favourite of all worlds, it's impossible to distinct art, entertainment and science from each other. Hermann Hesse came rather close with The Glass Bead Game, but the game described in this novel, fails my qualifications for being way too influenced by ivory tower attitudes. |
|
|
| TheTrinity |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Disclaimer: Meat, this thread is for people who actually care about literature, philosophy and stuff of this sort. |
the first biggest problem with the world is illiteracy. simply because one can use language as objective, doesnt mean they are being objective with the use of language. as in, the proper analysis of an observation is the correct form of observation. the analysis of analysis is the correct form of justification. the justification of justification is the correct form of realization. the realization of realization is the correct form of acknowledgement.
literature is a method of analysis, whether it is story telling or not. language is an artform. it is up to the writer, to be artistic and objective in his creation of the art of language. philosophy is the act of thinking at a deeper level.
science is supposed to be objective. objectivity includes everything that everyone experiences, physical, and metaphysical. emotions, intuition, are important experiences that science denies credibility as being objective, when nearly all objective observations are done by means other than measurements or calculation of misinformed data, or results of misinformed data. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| jenny mccarthy is a dumb whore. |
|
|
| TheTrinity |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
Art should never be a democratic process. |
democracy is based on control of power. nothing that is based on control of power, is ever good. |
|
|
| TheTrinity |
| quote: | Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
What does it matter? If people derive pleasure from it then its not worth getting too worked up over.
That is the entire point of everything. Deriving pleasure somehow/sometime from an investment of our time and/or money is why we wake up in the morning.
People that analyze art are as bad as stock brokers and investment bankers. They apply tangible values to things of no real particular physical value, only perceived value (that is if you ignore the actual physical value of the material used, a golden statue is not worth anymore than a big block of gold the same weight). |
the real art of art, is the art of the analysis of art. |
|
|
| TheTrinity |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
Of course not. There is no such thing as 'solitary', especially when it comes to art.
|
but there are artists who are unique, and irreplicable in their use of style to influence art. |
|
|
| TheTrinity |
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
The basic point in both cases is that interpretations of anything are never neutral. In perceiving anything we warp it, which is simply part of our existing as an individual in the world...
Now, in terms of science etc, the 'facts' are given far more neutrally- we're able to more easily access the facts. Art is ALREADY a fantastical interpretation, and not a direct representation of the world. When we look at it then we're interpreting and interpretation: We're analysing not the world as we can experience it (like reading a science journal), but are analysing the intentional thought of another person (the artist)---
In this way, our 'seeing' art, and our analysis of it is drastically different than our analysis of science. Art is not a reflection of nature, its a reflection of an INTERPRETATION of nature. Science (at least claims to be) a direct reflection, art is not.
science has one level of bias (our eyes), art has two or more (our eyes looking through another person's eyes at a scene which we have no way of validating since we ONLY have access to the interpretation, and never the source (the Artistic thought which motivated the artistic act)). |
art is more objective than science is.
it takes quite a lot of work to consider oneself to be an
individual. the world is full of copies.
since there are more scientists than artists in the world,
art is more objective than science, because it is held to a
higher standard of truth, because less people subject
themselves to the work necessary to become an individual
artist.
an artist doesnt express what he "sees with his eyes" he expresses what he realizes about what he sees with all of his senses, including pain, emotion, psychology, philosophy, and uses a certain medium to express his unique view as objectively as possible. the inspiration of an artists is always greater than the inspiration of a scientist, unless a scientist approaches science by becoming an artists towards the analysis of what science is supposed to be (purely objective). |
|
|
|
|
