“Elitism” is basically a term used by the grievances of stupidity expressed en masse.

Those called “elitist” thrive on being wrong whilst those that don’t ...

I am still waiting for an example of one of the incredible insights anyone has had from reading literature? — ZhouBoTong

Art is not about extracting (intellectual) insights. I guess you do mean insight as an intellectual, logical, deduction. A thought of wisdom of sorts. A moral. Reading a novel is not about extracting an insight, just as having a baby is not about extracting an insight, for example. You could get an insight from a novel, but you could also read a novel to learn a language. That doesn't mean the novel is a language-learning aid. It just means you are using it as such, by skimming a surface from the whole.

While we're at it, I could also use a novel to level a desk, by putting it under one of the desk's legs. And I am still waiting for an example where a DVD with a movie is a sturdier leveler for my desk than the hardcover, 200-page novel.

That's nonsense. When we witness events, whether in a film or not, no description is required in order to understand what is going on unless there is something about the events which is beyond our understanding and we need to ask someone else to explain what is going on.

That's nonsense. When we witness events, whether in a film or not, no description is required — Janus

No picturing of what's described in a book is required, either.

Why would we be framing this in terms of requirements, by the way?

No picturing of what's described in a book is required, either. — Terrapin Station

When I read a novel I do visualize the events, characters and places described. If you don't or cannot so this, then I can only conclude that you are reading the wrong novels or that you lack a vivid imagination. Judging from your general philosophical disposition as it is demonstrated in your posts, I would be inclined to opt for the latter explanation. You generally come across as a one-dimensional thinker.

When I read a novel I do visualize the events, characters and places described. If you don't or cannot so this, then I can only conclude that you are reading the wrong novels or that you lack a vivid imagination. — Janus

For many people, when they watch films, they do imagine descriptions of what they're shown. If you don't or cannot do this, perhaps you lack a vivid imagination. (I wouldn't say that anything is a "wrong" film or novel.)

Descriptions are not imagined, they are thought so you are talking nonsense again. In any case if you sit there watching a film and describing to yourself what is happening then I feel kind of sorry for your impoverished experience. Sure you need to be sharp in watching a film to pick up subtle connections, but the same goes for reading a novel.

Descriptions are not imagined, they are thought so you are talking nonsense again. — Janus

Can you cement the distinction you're making?

You don't need imagination to describe an event you have witnessed, you just need to be articulate to the required degree.

So the distinction between imagination and thought that you're making is?

Willfully obtuse as usual; go back and read; I'm not going to repeat myself.

Wow. You can't even handle the most rudimentary aspects of forwarding a position. You're forwarding an argument based on a putative distinction between imagination and thought, where picturing something described supposedly counts as one, and describing something pictured counts as the other. To support that argument, you need to be explicit about what the supposed distinction is. So what are the details of the distinction you're claiming?

You just laid out the distinction between describing what is witnessed and visualizing what is described for yourself. The first requires language, thought and the other requires imagination, the ability to visualize; different faculties obviously. This has, as usual with you, been a pointless conversation. You need to learn to pay attention to what others are saying if you want to actually engage in fruitful discussion.

The first requires language, thought and the other requires imagination, the ability to visualize — Janus

So are you saying that imagination is only visualization? So you'd say that music involves no imagination? Does devising personality traits, dialogue,.etc. for characters when writing fiction involve no imagination?

I am a fan of Faith No More... — Janus

You want it all, but you can't have it...

The distinction was between the imaginative effort required for novels that is not required for films/movies...

Denying that is foolish.

Imagination is thought, but not all thought is imaginative.

Music is akin to visualization in that it does not necessarily involve linguistically mediated conceptual thought.

Of course the writing of fiction, since it characteristically does not consist merely in descriptions of witnessed as opposed to imagined events involves imagination. You keep trying to change the subject; that's why so many seem to find conversing with you so frustrating.

You want it all, but you can't have it... — creativesoul

I do and I can't. :cry:

There are actual scientific studies on this. Why argue when the data is out there?

Data on what exactly? References?

This thread is so long, I've not read through it, but two days ago I met with my sister (in from California) and we walked through the Metropolitan Museum of Art in NYC so we could chat while strolling through one of the world's great art collections.

I visit The Met often...and never fail to spend time in the Impressionist/post impressionist area to view the paintings of my personal favorite, Vincent Van Gogh.

He only sold one painting in his lifetime...and for all practical purposes, died a failure. Yet today, a painting of his (there are over 800) would sell for millions. One sold for $66 million a few years back.

Price is not the final indicator of beauty, but I look at a Van Gogh and damn near always come close to tears at what I see...and think about the man and his art.

Just some commentary I think belongs in this thread.

Google Scholar perhaps?

Just some commentary I think belongs in this thread. — Frank Apisa

What are you trying to say in relation to this thread?

In reply to Zhoubotong: art is the opinion of elitists if elitism is people having a preference for particular art or a particular artist, that is, having a subjective point of view of what is good and bad art and even not art at all.

Those who view Shakespeare as a great writer of plays displaying ideas of morality, human nature, conflict or right and wrong, are behaving exactly the same as those who believe Michael is a great director portraying the same ideas, or Saul Bellow or Bergman or Joyce or Tennessee Williams.
Even if we believe the Shakespearean supporters are doing it out of some idea of belonging, glamour, class or sense of superiority, that is their reason, that is the basis for their preference; somehow for some reason they get something from it. It may be unfair that millions are poured into Shakespeare and very little goes to some smaller play that lasts a few months then disappears, but that’s the breaks that goes with artists and their audience.

Maybe Shakespeare is propped up artificially, but no more than a piece of performance art put on at a gallery that can’t actually be sold and taken home, that only appears because the gallery paid the performer to do it and sold some other work as a result from the publicity or the cache the work generates for the gallery.

So all work exists and survives according to its audience. So yes, art is the opinion of elitist groups.

How and why it should find its way into education is another matter? Outside of school people can act on their preference by choosing or ignoring a book or film. Inside of school the work is pressed on them by those who chose the curriculum. Actually, that’s not necessarily the case, the teacher is allowed to chose an artist or writer that he/she can use to work within the demands of the curriculum.

What, to find out what kind of data you were referring to? Or what particular studies you had in mind when you commented?

Brett
521

Just some commentary I think belongs in this thread. — Frank Apisa


What are you trying to say in relation to this thread? — Brett

What do you suppose I was trying to say in relation to this thread?

Music is akin to visualization in that it does not necessarily involve linguistically mediated conceptual thought.

And such referring to “imagining” versus films and novels. There are studies that look at these things and how they differ.

You can look or not. Doesn’t bother me.

What do you suppose I was trying to say in relation to this thread? — Frank Apisa

Well you said you liked Van Gogh, but I couldn’t make any connection after that.

Music is akin to visualization in that it does not necessarily involve linguistically mediated conceptual thought. — Janus

So "imagination" is "something, not necessarily visualization, that doesn't involve 'linguistically-mediated conceptual thought'."

What's the "something?" And insofar as one might think of what one is doing musically linguistically--for example, "I'm playing a whole tone scale-based pattern over a series of major seventh chords," it's not imaginative then?

Also, what does "linguistically-mediated conceptual thought" refer to where simply "language" wouldn't have sufficed?

This isn't changing the subject. Your argument hinged on a dubious claim about a distinction between imagination and thought.

The distinction was between the imaginative effort required for novels that is not required for films/movies...

Denying that is foolish. — creativesoul

The "conventional wisdom" there is what's foolish. Try doing philosophy for once instead of just being an apologist for conventional wisdom.

What's the distinction you'd make between thought and imagination? Let's see if your distinction works for the purposes Janus wants his distinction to work for.