Paul Eres ([info]rinku) wrote,
@ 2006-12-18 08:39:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Entry tags:aesthetics, history

Theme and Media Through History
Creating a post on any question. Arque writes: "but maybe something that explains...what kind of story would be better for something like a short story versus one for a novel. or more general, how to know which medium to use based on a given subject or theme (include painting or music or whatever)? or maybe you could just point me to a book on aesthetics but it would be fun hearing this from you"

A: The answer is to be found in the empirical study of those forms. For instance, what were the themes of the most popular and influential games, novels, plays, visual art, music, and so on? Let's see.

The five most influential novels in western history have been the Old Testament, the New Testament, War and Peace, Atlas Shrugged, and Harry Potter. Their defining characteristic is that they present an overall worldview, a way to see the world, what values are, what existence is really about. So themes about what life is about are best for novels.

The five most influential short stories in history have all been Aesop's Fables or fairy tales. Their defining characteristic is that they present a simple cause:effect relationship; if you do x, y will result. Their utility is in making simple moral decisions. So if you want to create an important short story, restrict yourself to a particular type of action, and its consequences.

The five most influential plays have all been by Shakespeare. Their defining characteristic is that they deal with particular psychological elements and their danger. In that way they are similar to short stories, but they go deeper into personality than short stories can, because you can actually see the person; so it's not 'do this type of action and bad things will happen' but rather 'be this type of person and you'll be psychologically destroyed'.

Movies are just plays in disguise, so I'll skip them.

The five most influential lyrical songs have all been folk songs (Happy Birthday is one). Their defining characteristic is celebration of particular events.

Poetry works the same as lyrical music, except that it's more extended. The most influential poems are the epics: the two Homer's, the two Indian epics, and Gilgamesh. They share the idea of heroism (which notice that the best novels etc. typically *do not* share; though they usually have heroes they aren't focused on the deeds and life and being of the hero the way epic poems are). So the best poetry is epic, and deals with people who can do anything, its purpose is to break the common but false idea that you can't do anything you want.

The five most influential non-lyrical songs are by various classical composers, and their defining characteristic is harmonic integrity through time, on the combination or orientation of parts into a whole or system, the persistence of identity through time, or in other words that time does change things, but it doesn't change identity.

The five most influential games are poker, chess, soccer, tag, and hide-and-go-seek. Their defining characteristic is that they simulate mathematical systems (i.e. systems that deal with measurement) in a simplified way, and in particular systems which deal with conflict between opposing forces. So the best games are about conflict between two or more sides (not necessarily violent conflict, but it is necessary that one side win and the other lose). Their central theme is that life is fair, that it follows predictable rules, and that if you figure out these rules and use them for your advantage you will be victorious; that victory goes toward the person who knows the game the best.

The five most influential videogames are The Sims, the Mario series, the Grand Theft Auto series, the Gran Turismo series, and the Final Fantasy series. Their defining characteristic is wish fulfillment, creating a life which a person would rather have than the one they have right now. So if you want to create an influential game, create one that lets a player do things he only dreams of doing (hopefully he'll then try to make real life more like he imagines it could be).

The five most influential paintings are all either portraits or landscapes, and those five all share the idea of depicting places better than the view outside a person's window, and people who are better to look at than one's friends and family, and in that way they have a similar purpose to the best videogames, with the difference being that videogames allow you to do things you want to do but cannot, whereas paintings allow you to be surrounded by things you wish to be surrounded by but cannot.



(Post a new comment)


[info]moogle1
2006-12-18 04:29 pm UTC (link)
The key difference between movies and plays is the ability to force perspective on the audience: cinematography.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]rinku
2006-12-18 05:59 pm UTC (link)
That's one of the differences. Another is that plays are live performances where the actors go all the way through, whereas movies are performed over and over in small chunks to get different scenes perfect. But the differences are all those of craft rather than of substance, similar to the differences between music that is performed live by a bard or by someone playing an instrument or singing directly and music that is recorded and edited electronically.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]moogle1
2006-12-18 06:07 pm UTC (link)
Perspective is part of substance. That's why Ender's Shadow is a significantly different novel from Ender's Game.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]rinku
2006-12-18 06:22 pm UTC (link)
Those are two very different uses of the word perspective. The difference of perspective between plays and movies is spatial viewpoint. The difference of perspective between Ender and Ender's shadow is viewpoint character.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]moogle1
2006-12-18 06:42 pm UTC (link)
I agree that they are different, but they are not entirely distinct.

Would you also then include animation under the same category?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]rinku
2006-12-18 07:10 pm UTC (link)
Cartoons/anime are a hybrid between manga/comics (a genre I forgot to mention) and movies/plays. Hybrid genres are possible. Musicals/opera are another (plays/movies combined with music).

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]cwoxviii
2006-12-18 05:03 pm UTC (link)
You can't even begin to imagine how spectacularly wrong you are.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]rinku
2006-12-18 05:56 pm UTC (link)
How specifically?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]cwoxviii
2006-12-18 06:08 pm UTC (link)
That the answer is to be found in empirical study; the nature of the influence the work is supposed to have; your definitions of the media in question; and which five works are the most influential. For starters.

You're closest on videogames. Which makes sense.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]rinku
2006-12-18 06:20 pm UTC (link)
Oh, I'm sure I'm wrong about some of the most influential works, but how do *you* know which ones are the most influential?

You're mainly a classicist, which means you have probably a false view of aesthetics in this sense: classicists are taught that the most prestigious works or the works that critics like best are the most influential, which isn't the case (though I'd be surprised if you disagreed with my selection of epic poems and plays as it comes closest to what classicists are taught; but there aren't really that many influential plays or epic poems, they're weaker media).

There's also a big difference between how influential an artwork was on subsequent artworks and how influential it was on people and history. Uncle Tom's Cabin for example didn't have too much of an influence on the development of the novel, and yet I'd put it in the top 10 of influential novels simply because without it the Civil War probably wouldn't have happened (we might even be separated into the North US and South US today).

Also, even if I'm wrong about which five are the most important in that media, the others that I could have chosen and even the ones you would have chosen usually have similar themes to those five. The only exception is novels, which are pretty flexible: 1984 for example is not influential for presenting a worldview, but rather for satire and warning and for creating conceptual tools which are useful in judging politics, there are plenty of other exceptions like it in the novel form; but the other media are all pretty consistent in what themes the most influential works share.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]cwoxviii
2006-12-18 07:30 pm UTC (link)
I am no classicist, and in fact, my education was entirely based on the principle that critics are just people, and usually biased and self-blinded people, and that their theories were to be ignored in favor of self-discovery. We had no textbooks.

If I am a classicist, insofar as I find that there tends to be more important content and context in classical works than modern ones, then that is a conclusion that I have drawn on my own. That's probably not even putting it accurately.

And indeed, I would probably say that I am more of an aesthete than you could ever be, for I appreciate beauty for its own sake, while you appreciate it only for its use to other ends.

Seriously though, saying that movies are just plays in disguise discredits the entire enterprise. You ought to work on that.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]rinku
2006-12-18 07:50 pm UTC (link)
I actually don't really value self-discovery either. Self-discovery is great but it isn't great for the sciences (including aesthetics). Look at what happens in medicine when you use self-discovery: you get all kinds of crazy theories about honey and vinegar or fasting or raw food or whatever curing any disease. Detailed fields require dedicated study, not case studies. This is also why I don't believe game designers should learn what good game designs are like by playing games, it's important but you can't rely on it.

I agree with the sentiment that I'm not an aesthete, but I hate aesthetes (with the exception of Oscar Wilde, who wasn't really one). It's not so much that I see beauty as a means to an end, it's more that that is what I believe beauty *is* -- I wrote a post somewhere in this LJ a year or so back defining beauty in epistemological terms, and I still believe what I wrote there. Beauty is essentially epistemological. What we find beautiful is what is useful to our mentation, and the pleasure involved evolved for that purpose.

But I'm curious: why would it mean that a person doesn't appreciate something if he sees it as a means to other ends? Does it mean that a person doesn't appreciate food if he eats what is healthy rather than what tastes good, or does it mean that a person doesn't appreciate knowledge if he sees it as a means to action in the world rather than for its own sake, or sees sex as a means to children rather than fun on its own? It doesn't make sense to me that seeing something as purposeless is better than seeing it as a having a purpose.

I actually included that line about movies on purpose, for something like the effect you describe.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]cwoxviii
2006-12-18 08:02 pm UTC (link)
If you aren't to believe "authorities," and you aren't to believe, yourself, who are you to believe? If the self-proclaimed critics can't tell you what's important about Aristotle, and you can't tell yourself what's important about Aristotle, then who tells you? Certainly it's not "the masses," is it? Some kind of personified force of history?

I don't believe that beauty can only be epistemological, if only because it is not universally useful as a tool of evolution. There are many dangerous things that are beautiful, but more importantly, there are many "ugly" things that appear beautiful upon reflection - upon distance from evolutionary needs.

Anyway, I didn't say you didn't appreciate beauty; I said you appreciated it only as a means. I appreciate as an end as well as a means.

And saying that a thing is an end is not the same as saying that it is purposeless. You, too, have some ends, that you purport that beauty is working towards; certainly you would not describe them as "purposeless."

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]rinku
2006-12-18 08:27 pm UTC (link)
What I meant was not that a person should neither believe authorities nor himself, but that a person can't form theories solely from their own experience. Our lifetime is limited. Doctors could not learn everything there was to know about medicine if they didn't rely on the collective experience of mankind. So what I'm saying is: a person shouldn't rely on his own personal experience, and shouldn't rely on what he is told, but should instead rely on the collected factual recorded knowledge of mankind. Here's a simple example: in the 1930s or so, both the authorities and personal experience told people that smoking didn't cause lung cancer (if you had relied on personal experience it'd have been too late, and your sample wasn't large enough to figure it out on your own), but if people had looked at the collected medical histories of everyone, they could easily have determined that it does.

Our beauty reaction sometimes misfires, sure. Just like our taste buds sometimes tell us that food that is bad for us is good for us. You can't trust your body's signals absolutely, either with beauty or with taste or with anything else (love is another example). But even though the beauty reaction *sometimes* works incorrectly doesn't mean that isn't what it's for. Taste is for determining which food is good and which food is bad, beauty is for determining which experiences are good and which experiences are bad, both can go wrong, but most of the time they're right.

What does it mean that a person doesn't appreciate beauty? Do you mean that I'm biologically incapable of it, or what? How would you know whether I experience pleasure or not, or to what degree?

I was using the theory of ends and means since that's what you seemed to be using, but in actuality it'd be truer to say that I don't believe anything is either a means nor an ends. They're not really distinctions I use. I use purpose, yes, but that's about it. In reality, causes and effects are only distinguishable mentally, metaphysically there is no distinction, all effects are causes and all causes are effects.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]cwoxviii
2006-12-18 09:56 pm UTC (link)
I totally agree with your first paragraph. There is, however, an enormous difference between poring over the writings of actual experimental scientists, and perhaps trying to replicate some of their experiments yourself in order to validate their findings, and reading a science textbook, which is essentially some lame PhD's version of the exact same thing, through the obscuring filters of a dozen PhDs before him. You could say that you are, in fact, pooling the experiences of others, but you have to do this firsthand. You cannot, as a matter of course, rely on other poolers to do the job for you, without extenuating circumstances.

In that sense, then, I am not a classicist; insofar as the academic instutition of classical studies exists, it exists as something like a giant textbook. This guy's deconstruction of that guy's reconstruction of this other guy's analysis of Sophocles, or whatever. I loathe academia. I just read Sophocles myself. (The absence of any Sophocles on your theater list, by the way, is just one example of your tragic oversight.)

Re: beauty, okay, but you skipped my "more importantly" part. Euclid's Elements is beautiful to me; it would not be to a caveman; I think it's impossible to say that an appreciation of the Elements could have any gross effect on my ability to reproduce, the one and only criterion for evolutionary success. So what am I doing? Fooling myself?

For the last time, I didn't say you didn't appreciate beauty. I merely said that you only appreciated it as a means.

As far as your theories of ends and means, well, I haven't the time nor the inclination to talk metaphysics to any great extent here. Still, your position is, at least, consistent, and that alone makes it valuable.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]rinku
2006-12-18 10:18 pm UTC (link)
Yeah, I agree that textbooks are generally bad, I haven't yet found a good aesthetics one. But some textbooks are okay, I like Feynman's physics textbook for example. I should also add that Euclid's Elements was intended (and was primarily used as) a textbook.

Sophocles was influential in ancient Greece, but that's about it. Those plays haven't been that influential on that many people. I tried to restrict myself to works which affected at least a hundred million people (directly), not plays which were only important to small areas. His plays are very good admittedly, but quality is less important than positive influence to the artist (or at least should be).

Are you saying that beauty has *no* relevance to the importance to reproduce and just evolved arbitrarily? I'm not sure I get your meaning. That'd be pretty anti-common sense to me to suggest that we possess some attribute which just came into being on its own, without evolutionary importance. Obviously if a caveman could understand Euclid he'd find it beautiful, it's just the obstacle of illiteracy that stands in his way, but assuming he could get through that obstacle and understand it, it'd find it beautiful too.

But what does it mean to say that someone only appreciates beauty as a means? The statement doesn't make any sense to me. If you mean that I don't believe that someone should dedicate their life to the hedonistic pleasure of trying to feel as much beauty as possible, then sure. If you mean that I don't believe in "art for art's sake", then yes. But I don't understand *how* someone can appreciate beauty as an ends in itself, it's just baffling. Is that like those people who just eat and eat because they think the taste of food is an end in itself? If not, what else does it mean to appreciate beauty as an end in itself?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]cwoxviii
2006-12-18 10:33 pm UTC (link)
Mathematical works are written by mathematicians. Textbooks are compiled by academics. In this sense, the Elements is not a textbook; it is an original work.

Sophocles was influential chiefly to Shakespeare and it is your contention that Shakespeare was influential to the mass of people. Thus Sophocles is influential to the mass of people; without him, there would have been no Shakespeare. This is what I meant when I said that what you consider influence is too narrow; you don't think broadly enough.

Of course beauty has relevance to the importance of reproduction. But it also has relevance to things that have no importance to reproduction. So how do you explain that? It's just fallout of the reproductive part - leftovers? Misinterpretations? I don't see why beauty can't be both a biological symptom of evolution AND a metaphysical, conceptual entity to be contemplated.

I suppose that when I talk about beauty as a means I intend to say that you see something beautiful and say, "This is beautiful because it makes me think about x, which helps me do..." something of value, presumably. (Survive, I guess, in your case.) I can do that! And I think one should do that. But I also can see something beautiful and say, "This is beautiful." And that's it. I can live in and breathe the beauty. It becomes an end in itself, but that doesn't mean I'm a hedonist. It does mean, perhaps, that I want to live a beautiful life, but that's different from living a life chasing after beauty.

Or to put it another way, many things are ends in themselves when viewed from a certain perspective: beauty, nobility, virtue, life. But from different perspective, each of these can be a means to the other. To live fully is to appreciate all of the aspects of all of these things, not simply those aspects that are inclined to one which you have decided is the most important.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]rinku
2006-12-18 10:53 pm UTC (link)
re Sophocles:
(15:40:42) Paul Eres: without your father you wouldn't exist
(15:40:47) Paul Eres: does that mean your father is as great as you?
(15:41:11) Paul Eres: you have to make a distinction between what actually does things, and what just caused them
(15:41:25) Harlock D Hero: no, but it means you can't have an accurate view of history without him
(15:41:36) Paul Eres: yes, but he isn't important to think about or mention
(15:42:11) Paul Eres: there are trillions of things that you wouldn't have existed without
(15:42:15) Paul Eres: can we name them all?
(15:42:22) Paul Eres: would naming them tell us anything about you?

You're being too vague for me to follow in your third paragraph there. What do you mean by relevance? I wasn't saying that you shouldn't contemplate beautiful things or find pleasure in doing so if that's what you meant, I was saying that the reason you want to do so is evolutionary. If you're saying you don't see how beauty can be an evolutionary advantage, it has to do with conceptuality: people who contemplate beautiful things improve their cognition (note: not just the feeling of beauty, it's the actual contemplation of the beautiful thing that improves their cognition, the feeling is just an evolutionary means to that, just as anger is an evolutionary means to self-protection).

I obviously don't track how useful to my cognition every beautiful thing that I see is, just as I don't measure how healthy each individual meal is. I don't think it's possible to do what you are describing (to merely state that something is good and not think about it any further than that). In other words, what you're basically saying is that to examine a feeling gets in the way of it. It probably can, but obviously nobody examines every single feeling they have. It doesn't make sense to say that I or anyone else can't feel something without examining it, people don't have infinite awareness to work with.

What have I decided is the most important? As I stated before, I don't think anything is the most important except reality. Some things can be more important for some purposes than others of course, but merely to place importance on X doesn't make one see Y less. Importance increases awareness, it doesn't decrease it, or rather, importance isn't zero-sum, placing importance on something doesn't take it away from other things.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]cwoxviii
2006-12-19 05:41 pm UTC (link)
Don't accuse me of conflating causes. Every man has a father who is responsible for his existence. Only a few have fathers who are responsible for the character of their existence, and who can truly say: my father made me.

As to the rest, I'll say this: appreciating beauty doesn't just improve your cognition. It also improves your ability to appreciate beauty. It is exercised, like a muscle. That is the benefit to appreciation-as-such, when you're looking at the facet that makes beauty and end.

I had thought that your most important end was life, that all things are subordinate to survival. I guess that isn't true?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]rinku
2006-12-19 05:51 pm UTC (link)
It's true that some causes are more important than others, but if I were to include artworks which were influential on other artworks on this list, it would defeat the purpose of the list (a list of artworks which have been influential on people). So I think not including Sophocles is fine -- if you want to say Sophocles wrote better plays than Shakespeare, fine, I agree, if you want to say that his plays influenced more people indirectly, then maybe, but they definitely didn't influence more people directly than Shakespeare's plays.

I agree that appreciating beauty makes one better at doing so, but tasting fine food improves one's sense of taste too. It's just how the mechanism works.

I don't know what you mean by benefit to appreciation-as-such because, as I said, I don't agree that there's such a thing as anything-as-such. Nothing can be treated in total isolation to anything else, everything has a context, and the context of beauty is what I've been describing.

To say that life is the ultimate value isn't to say that all things are subordinate to survival; what it means is that valuation is the essential characteristic of life, and that therefore valuation itself (aka life) is the ultimate value. This doesn't mean that a person can't place a higher value on something than his own life, but it does mean that the purpose of valuation is ultimately to maintain the ability to evaluate.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]cwoxviii
2006-12-19 09:31 pm UTC (link)
I'm simply debating your definition of influence. You concede that maybe Sophocles' plays influenced more people in directly; who says that's not more important that which plays influence who directly? What is the difference between direct and indirect influence? The number of people who have actually experienced the work? That would make Justin Timberlake the most influential musician of 2006. The number of people who have been directly affected by people who have directly experienced the work as a result of that work? It seems to me that you're simply mincing, at that point.

I agree that everything has context. In fact, things having shifting contexts, depending on your perspective, which is at least partially under the control of your consciousness. That is to say, in one perspective, beauty is attached to other concepts by context but remains their pinnacle. The rock on top of the mountain is still part of the mountain, but it's also still the one on top. When looking at beauty this way, all things flow towards the beautiful. It is an "end" in the sense I mean it. Not in the sense that a Platonist (but not Plato) would mean it.

I agree with you about life. I liken it to the abhorrence of nonexistence, which I guess is just a negative way of putting it. Still, you admit the possibility that one may give one's life in order to contribute to a larger perpetuation of evaluation. I wonder how one could consider that ultimately selfish, though. (This is me approaching you through your Objectivist past, which I gather you're beyond now, so stop me if it's unfair.)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]rinku
2006-12-19 09:48 pm UTC (link)
Influence is the product of number of people who have been directly affected by a work and how deeply they were affected (i.e. how great a change in their lives the work produced).

By context I didn't mean perspective, I meant reality-based context. I.e. no matter what a person's perspective is, things have the same context.

I was never an Objectivist, so I don't know what you mean by Objectivist past. I studied the philosophy and am still doing so, because it's the most complete and developed philosophy since Aristotle and the only real attempt so far at what Nietzsche called the revaluation of values (necessary for the historical transition from slave morality to a real morality).

I don't mean to perpetuate a larger perpetuation of evaluation -- a person would still be perpetuating his own valuation, even if he died in the process. The way I see it as selfish is fairly complex: first off I don't believe we are the same selves we will be in 5 years or were 5 years ago. There's some overlap but given enough time you are a completely different person than you used to be. You literally aren't who you were when you were 10 years old; all your atoms are gone, most of your memories are gone, most of your personality is different, you'd have to struggle to name anything the two entities have in common. Because it's the case that our lifespan is not actually our biological lifespan, but much shorter than that, dying to do something great can make sense. "Survival" is in some contexts unselfish: who are you surviving for? Not you, but who you will be in 10, 100, or 1000 years. That's not you, you're doing it for that person. So how can that be called any more selfish than, say, dying to save a loved one? Which one is more selfish depends on which one is better for you: you at that moment, not you in perpetuity.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]cwoxviii
2006-12-19 10:06 pm UTC (link)
That's one hell of a vague product.

But all real contexts have to be appreciated through human perspective - evaluated. If these perspectives can change, can't also the evaluations?

I don't really know your philosophical past, I just knew you had intense dealings with Objectivism. Now I know.

I can see what you're saying in your final paragraph, but it's difficult for me to discern how a person's dying to achieve something great could perpetuate their own valuation. The dead do not evaluate anything. There must be something, in that case, in the very ultimate moment of life that suggests the accomplishment of the great deed, so that the dying may appreciate its value in its fullness while he's still alive. Sort of an ultimate ratio of evaluation. That's a pretty far-out theory, although I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand.

As far as identity is concerned, do you not believe in the permanence of consciousness as the deciding factor? It seems to me that there are teleological solutions to this problem, as well (Socrates' Athenian ship), but I have a feeling you wouldn't like them.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]rinku
2006-12-19 10:18 pm UTC (link)
It isn't vague to me. You can count the number of people affected. You can observe how deep the effects go.

Just because reality has to be observed doesn't mean that reality is composed of observation. By context I meant the real relationships between different entities in reality, not just the ones we notice. Just because a person doesn't know, or mentally ignores, certain relationships (such as that between beauty and cognition) doesn't mean the context vanishes. Sure, a person can act as if something didn't have context, and treat it as an end in itself, but I see that as a mental evasion.

It's difficult to discern what I mean, yes. But it might help to think of evaluation less as an on/off thing (living or dead) and more as a degree thing. Certainly you'd agree that dying now is better than living forever as a zombie or lobotomized, yes? So dying to perform a great action is something similar: to not take a golden opportunity would in some rare cases be to decrease one's capacity for valuation to the point where going on living is no longer worthwhile.

Yeah, I don't believe in the permanence of consciousness, I think that's an illusion (in the sense of a magic trick). Consciousness is quantitative and made up of discrete units, there's a very quick series of sensations or 'awarenesses', it's not a stream, it's more like a line of dominoes falling, except that the domino falling creates the domino it falls into.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]rinku
2006-12-18 08:37 pm UTC (link)
Another way to say what I was getting at in the last paragraph is that I don't believe *anything* is an ends in itself, I see everything as a means to further ends. Which is another way of saying that I don't believe anything is disconnected from anything else, reality is one; reality is the only ends in itself.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]bastardzero
2006-12-18 10:41 pm UTC (link)
Ah, yes, ignoring the most influential medium of the twentieth century, that's just crazy enough to work!

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]rinku
2006-12-18 10:54 pm UTC (link)
The 20th century was pretty bad anyway. It'll probably go down in history as our worst century ever.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]rinku
2006-12-18 06:29 pm UTC (link)
So in other words, sure, I use influence differently than most aesthetic philosophers would (influence on regular people and on history, not influence with regards to the development of the media), I see the different art media in harder and faster categories than they do (by sense organ rather than by tradition or materials used), and I see theme as different than they do (as the change in thought and action produced in the audience rather than as message or the integrating principle of the artwork). But these differences are good differences, as I have it right in the sense that my theories are more accurate because they're better at prediction than theirs.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]cwoxviii
2006-12-18 07:32 pm UTC (link)
If your theories are so accurate at prediction, then predict for me what lasting effect Harry Potter (scoff) will have either on novels OR on history.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]rinku
2006-12-18 07:38 pm UTC (link)
As I said, I don't measure the influence of novels on other novels -- I measure it on people and history.

But good question. I'm planning to write a review of the series when the 7th book comes out. But here are two simple answers: it has approximately doubled the number of kids and teenagers reading novels (most of them progressed to other novels after starting with that series, there was a poll that says that 45% of American children and teenagers who read novels regularly didn't read before they got into the Harry Potter series), and dominated the sales charts so much that the sales charts had to be reorganized to exclude children's books because the top 5 were always Harry Potter books every year. Second, it presents a cohesive worldview and secondarily theory of personality which affects how millions of people view the structure of society and other people, the details of which will have to wait for my review.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]cwoxviii
2006-12-18 07:48 pm UTC (link)
Those can't be anything but tiny blips on the radar of history. The books aren't, say, founding a religious movement that will guide the course of history for 1000 years for an entire hemisphere (like the Bible). I think you're placing too much emphasis on them because they are current, and you live currently. Do you think anyone will give a shit about Harry Potter in 100 years? Maybe - probably the same number of people that will give a shit about the Lord of the Rings on its 100th birthday. That is to say, not many, and even fewer in positions of any sort of power.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]rinku
2006-12-18 07:52 pm UTC (link)
That's actually an interesting side point: I find art is less useful in influencing people in power (why this is I don't know, I have a few theories though).

But yes, I do believe Harry Potter is founding a religion of sorts (a worldview religion rather than a supernatural religion, in the same way that Objectivism and Stoicism are).

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]rinku
2006-12-18 07:39 pm UTC (link)
secondarily a*

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]flicker
2006-12-20 05:28 am UTC (link)
This is like turning to a crowd with crumbs running down your shirt and swelled-up cheeks and indicating, via grunting and hand gestures, that the five best foods are the ones you've just jammed in your mouth: I wouldn't think you wholly grasped what food was, and I would doubt that you actually knew what was in there.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]rinku
2006-12-20 08:36 am UTC (link)
Partially, but there's no other way to answer the question posed to me, except to pretend there isn't an answer.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…