Should add - the criteria I use is does the piece whether it be a painting, a mural, a tv show, film, book, or piece of music - work on multiple levels. Does it set out to do what the author intended? Can you analyze it from more than one perspective? Do you get something different from it each time you look at it? Do the flaws add to the work or take something away from it? Is the technique mastered? Or is the artist overwhelmed or struggling with technique - ie technique masters the artist.
For a piece that contains characters and a story - is the plot, characters and story all given equal time and attention? Do they work together as a whole? Or is one forgotten or discarded for another?
BTVS - works as "literary" work because while flawed, the flaws add to not take away from the work. There's more than just plot and characters. It operates on many layers. And each part of the work is given depth.
Bones is not a literary work. Because the flaws do hurt it. It can not work on multiple layers. And it does add twists on old themes, so much as repeat them. House is actually more literary than Bones.
Now, the question is after doing that, which I pose to myself as well as you - is really, how much of this is subjective and how much is objective and to what degree if any does it matter?
(Keeping in mind I'm in an existentialist frame of mind at the moment and don't think very much matters at all.)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
Re: How do we define art?
Date: 2006-05-25 01:33 pm (UTC)Can you analyze it from more than one perspective? Do you get something different from it each time you look at it? Do the flaws add to the work or take something away from it? Is the technique mastered? Or is the artist overwhelmed or struggling with technique - ie technique masters the artist.
For a piece that contains characters and a story - is the plot, characters and story all given equal time and attention? Do they work together as a whole? Or is one forgotten or discarded for another?
BTVS - works as "literary" work because while flawed, the flaws add to not take away from the work. There's more than just plot and characters.
It operates on many layers. And each part of the work is given depth.
Bones is not a literary work. Because the flaws do hurt it. It can not work on multiple layers. And it does add twists on old themes, so much as repeat them. House is actually more literary than Bones.
Now, the question is after doing that, which I pose to myself as well as you - is really, how much of this is subjective and how much is objective and to what degree if any does it matter?
(Keeping in mind I'm in an existentialist frame of mind at the moment and don't think very much matters at all.)