Writing

[heather the buzzard]

No: HPFGUIDX 130492

madorganization wrote:

>> Often times the author may not be aware of what this is, but 
>> it should still be there.  I see the difference between 
>> "fiction" and "literature" to be similar to the difference 
>> between Art and something that is artistic.  I do collages, 
>> that's artistic.  It requires a certain asthetic sense, but 
>> I'm not an artist.  I don't seek for anything beyond beauty 
>> in my work.  I think literature has to be more than just a 
>> good book, it has to have larger social implications. 

Katherine Coble wrote:
> No.  That's what you've been told by clinicians and professors.   
> It's simply not the case.  Look at Beethoven's 9th Symphony--
> written to express joy and beauty and the love of music.  It 
> endures because we can feel those things through the centuries.


Actually... now you're delving into my territory.  If you're 
talking about a contrast between 'art' and 'artistic', then you 
could have picked a better example than Beethoven.  :)

Beethoven was VERY much the type who was striving for something greater, something bigger, in his music.  ESPECIALLY in his symphonies.  #3 was originally meant as a tribute to Napoleon, who 
he saw as a great political figure -- until he crowned himself emperor.  Disillusioned, he renamed it the "Eroica", or "Heroic" symphony.  It's not just 'love of music', it's expression of heroicism, nobility, and greatness.  Beethoven was a staunch humanist, and sought to empower and communicate his fervent 
beliefs in the power of mankind.  #9, you example, is not actually about "Joy".  The original poem by   Schiller that was set (and 
which is only a small part in the last movement of the whole symphony, really) was "Ode to Freedom", and was really quite politically rebellious.  Beethoven wanted to use that, but in the political climate of the time couldn't risk it, so substituted 
'Joy' (joy is "Freude" and freedom is "Freiheit").  If you read 
the whole text, you see it really is a humanist manifesto.

So while it is totally possible to listen to it and just hear joy 
and beauty, its actual intentions are to be 'great art', invoking nobility, grandeur, and the betterment of the human race.

A better example of music 'just for the love of music' would be Mozart.  He did write a lot of big-g Great works of art, but huge portions of his oeuvre are just simple dance pieces, for the court balls, for background music.  They are utterly gorgeous and 'great' in their own way -- but it's a different scale of intended impact.

Now if 'intent' is the measure of 'great art' as opposed to 'artistic', then the Harry Potter books would not be 'great literature', because that was not JKR's intent.  Even if she does have some moral, some message, in mind, her primary intent is 
really just to tell an interesting story. 

However, I would say that "intent" is not the only measure.  Again, my expertise is in music so I'll use that for examples.  There are pieces that were composed 'just because', with no grandiose ideals 
in mind, that later were considered to be 'great art'... for instance, Vivaldi's Four Seasons has no 'great' message, they're 
just character pieces.  But they are classics in the truest sense 
of the word. 

Conversely, a composer might have the grandest notions in mind 
with his works, but actually come up with flops and garbage.  Skryabin believed that his was divinely appointed to create master artworks that would combine sound, light, all the senses, that 
would literally bring about the transfiguration of mankind.  He 
wrote some really wonderful pieces, I myself have performed the 
5th piano sonata and it's a realy workhorse and comes close to transfiguration in my mind!  But most are rarely played, and are relegated to the back shelf as interesting oddities.  Then there's the 1812 Overture, which is a celebration of the glories of 
independence and freedom and all that grandiose stuff... it truly 
is a grand piece... complete with cannons and churchbells, there's 
no way Tchaikovsky intended it to be something 'light' and 'just 
for the love of music'.  However, it's become so overly popular 
that its meaning has been lost, it belongs to the 'pops' orchestras and is heard in TV commercials the world over.

Back to Harry Potter -- even if JKR wrote it with no idea of greatness in mind, it still might develop that greatness.  That 
will take history to tell.  There can be greatness without intention.  It might be judged to be 'literature' in the grand 
scheme of things.  Or, it might be just a really nice children's 
book series...

In other words, sometimes 'just beauty' is not enough to take something out of 'amateur art' and into the annals of greatness... but sometimes, it is.  I mean, look at the Mona Lisa, or Starry Night.  Pachelbel's Canon would be another good example (though 
also suffering the fate of the 'pops').  It is truly and achingly beautiful, and so has become 'great' though initially it was 'just another string chaconne'. 

Whether something is considered 'literature' or 'fiction' is something that, I think, can only be determined with the passage 
of time and the judgment of decades.  I personally think that some 
of Stephen King's novels will come to be regarded as 'great literature' in the future, complete with deeper meanings, 
allegories, clever literary devices, etc etc.  But not all of them.  As for Harry... well, I'll wait and see what the final 2 books bring.  I would not be surprised if it does make that 'leap'.

heather the buzzard

ADMIN NOTE:  If you wish to respond to heather's comments about music or art without relating your comments to HP, please post it to OTChatter - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter

Thanks!