To didact or not to didact...

I use a story board concept. The scene to scene change in scenery if its brand new. I do what I can to depict to the reader as though they had a Heavy Metal comic in front of them. That would mean vividly real.

 

And mashed potatoes have no bones. Both statements are perfectly true but neither relates because the reader gets only the result, not the process.

The idea that a change of scene means a change of scenery doesn't work because a scene and the scenery, so closely related in film and stage, are incidental in fiction for the printed word. A scene is a unit of tension, a very different concept, and may contain multiple changes of venue in it. A new scene may begin in the same location the last ended, because the scene is a function not a location.

But that aside, who cares what's in the scene if it doesn't matter to the protagonist in the moment s/he calls now? If we're in the protagonist's POV, and on the scene, if the protagonist isn't paying attention to it it doesn't exist. The reader can't see it, no matter how hard you try. They can only know what they would see if only they could, a very different thing. And if the protagonist isn't actively noticing and reacting to something, the time it takes to read about it serves to do nothing but slow the narrative. Do I give a damn, for example, what kind of light fixture is lighting the room if the protagonist is searching the floor for clues? You, the author, might find it fascinating, but the protagonist is too busy to notice. And if the protagonist is our avatar...

Never forget that in the visual arts everything is in parallel. We see the action, evaluate the scenery, judge the character's personality and political presentation so far as dress and body attitude. In a single glance we know that the Millennium Falcon is a beat up ship that has seen plenty of usage. And we make that judgment via a host of individual observations, boiled down to a single reaction, literally in an eyeblink. There is no way in hell that you can approximate that kind of effect with, "The ship was obviously well used." And trying to present the information realistically by describing the ship in detail, in print, would take a thousand words and give only a static sketch. That's four manuscript pages in which nothing at all is happening in the thing the reader is with you for, the story.

Instead, we narrow the focus, and might mention that a passenger shook his head at the stuffing that was bulging through a rip on a seat, and have the pilot say, "I was meaning to have that reupholstered," and then go on with what matters to the reader. We give the emotional, not the physical ambience. As Alfred Hitchcock observed, "Drama is life with the dull bits left out."

If only they could see it. But when you read what you wrote you cheat. You're guided by intent. You created the words out of the image in your mind. But do the words reverse engineer that in the mind of a reader? For you, each line calls up images, memories, and background data, all living in your mind. But my mind, as everyone knows, is empty. So for me, each line calls up images, memories, and background data, all living in your mind. And you're not there to ask.

 

How can you cheat in the arts?


OT for a moment.... MERRY CHRISTMAS!

Okay... back on topic...

 

Writing is a craft. If you do it well enough they call you an artist, just like in most professions. The field is part of what's called the arts, but we are not artists by dint of using the keyboard to type what we hope is a story a reader will enjoy.

You cheat by requiring the reader to know what was intended without giving them the means to do that in a way meaningful to that reader, or by writing a story that requires the reader know what you know, in advance, to make it meaningful.

You have the picture. In fact, having it allowed you to create the words. But the words won't create that same image in the reader's mind. It can only make use of, or modify, an image they already have in their mind. Mention the Mona Lisa and I have the picture as soon as I read the words. Tell me that a certain woman has the face of Mona Lisa and the body of a pinup girl and I have that image, too, at least in concept, because the needed images are there for you to make use of. But for someone who has never seen DaVinci's Masterpiece you can write forever and not create that experience in the reader's mind. And fiction is all about creating emotional experience, not providing details.

What I'm getting at is that you have that picture, and are trying to create that same thing in the mind of a reader who doesn't have the necessary images to build on. And because they don't, they object, and say there's too much description. The problem is, that under normal circumstances the reader has no feedback path to you, so you can't explain what you mean when the reader is confused. And you certainly can't argue that it's their fault, given that your goal was to entertain them on their terms and didn't. You can only seek a different path, one that satisfies both of your needs. If you're goal is to do something different—something that takes the reader out of their comfort zone, you need to pay them for it in some way with extra reading enjoyment.

 

I guess they don't really call it the literary arts.... Silly me.

 

Oh they call it the literary arts, but you're not an artist. That's a title that's bestowed, not appropriated.

 

Speak for yourself.

 

On Dictionary.com:

Merriam-Webster says an artist is a person who creates art.

The Oxford Dictionary online offers this as one of their definitions:

If you write stories, you're an artist. It doesn't require any person to bestow that title on you, or to approve of it in any way. It's merely a matter of fact that some definitions of the word apply to you.

Whether you're a good artist, or a successful one, is a separate argument.

 

Look up "art."

Re-read the bold.
"Art" in and of itself is a useless term. Its inherent meaninglessness and abstractness necessitates consensus. You can call your own doo-doo art; but only when others call it art can it be considered art.

This is, of course, just how I see it, and I mean no offense to either Steerpike or DrWhozit. (This really should go without saying, but just in case)

 

I don't agree. You're fixing on a portion of one of many definitions. Just because it is the definition you prefer, doesn't mean other definitions don't apply. The Oxford Dictionary definition, for example.

The idea that others have to call it art doesn't get you anywhere. How many others? 1? 100? I know a lot of people who share the view that anyone who writes is producing art, so there are your "others." Unless you mean to say that it isn't art unless others who agree with you deem it so.

If you're writing stories, that falls within at least some definitions of the word art, so people are therefore correct to use that term if they desire to. Your agreement with their use, or mine for that matter, has no bearing.

 

That's a very good point.
Okay, you win this one.

 

What?

Is this the internet? Where the hell am I?

 

I try to be open-minded...

 

Quick, Steer, it's just another one of your episodes. Sit back. Take a pill. THEN, and only then, if you still feel the urge to rip out wires, proceed...

I think it is largely parents who first acclaim their infant's feces as art. Eventually it is the child who finds art in the movement itself.

Some people call "Beezle Greezle Motten Totten" art.

 

Nonsense. That definition speaks of people who successfully write novels. It's comforting to give ourrself the same title that writers like Jim Butcher and Nora Roberts hold, and think of ourselves as their equal. But don't try to tell Ms. Roberts, or a publisher that you are.

You're a writer or a novelist when people you don't know hear your name and say, "Oh, you mean the writer." You're an artist at it when people say, "What he does isn't writing, it's art." It's an earned title.

Were that not true anyone who tries to write, successful or not, is a writer, and there's no difference between you and my granddaughter, who isn't yet three. I personally think you're a lot better, and different than that. But in any case a pre-published writer can't be an artist because they, demonstrably, haven't yet learned the art of writing a story that people will pay money to read.

 

Sounds like OCPD if you ask me.

 

Tell you what, Cerebral. I say you are an artist. There! Done deal!

 

Well then. If you say it, it must be true.
No, but in all honesty, maybe we should be making some kind of arbitrary distinction between "meaningless art" and "meaningful art." Because if my mother (or DrWhozit over here) calls me an artist, I won't really feel the impulse to jump for joy. But if I sell a thousand copies, and have my readers call me an artist? I think it'll mean more to me.

And yeah, Steerpike, JayG's right in pointing out that the Oxford Dictionary does include vocational requirements. I was too lazy to point that out. Plus, I don't really have time to go back and forth without getting paid for it.

 

in re 'the arts'...

anyone who writes or sculpts, or paints, or composes, or dances, and so on, is generally considered to be 'practicing' one of the arts...

what follows, is others forming opinions about whether that person does so well enough to be considered an 'artist' with the creation of their words/sculptures/paintings/music/dancing, or some standing with a much less lofty label...

 

I was called aNew Member Quick Start

 

Having a vocation requirement as an absolute doesn't make sense. Was it Van Gogh who only sold one painting during his lifetime? Hardly a vocation. But his work sold well after his death. So he was transformed from non-artist to artist posthumously, merely because his work was selling?

That's not a compelling standard.

If you're practicing an art, as @mammamaia put it above, then I think you qualify as an 'artist' in the broad sense of the term. The fact that individual people may not agree does not more to make the writer a non-artist than their belief that a cat is a dog would transform the animal.

 

Consider the medical arts. Those guys practice till they die and seldom do we call them artists.

 

That's not even relevant, though. It's included in the Oxford Dictionary definition that you cited.

But he still sold one...whether you consider his a lucrative vocation is a separate issue.

Unless I misunderstood mammamaia, she differentiates between "practicing an art" and "being an artist."
The problem, really, is the definitions of "art" and "artists." We're all conceptualizing them differently because they are, like I said before, meaningless, inexact terms.

*facepalm*
As usual, Doc, I have no idea what your point is...

 

You are aware of the medical practice being called "The Medical Arts?"

 

By some people, sure...but what is your point? And how is it relevant to the topic we were discussing?