(January 6, 2015 at 12:06 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(January 5, 2015 at 2:00 pm)Faith No More Wrote: Stephen King is considered pulp mostly because of his writing style. He's good at weaving a story and great at developing characters, however, his delivery is fairly pedestrian.

In writing, plot and character are everything -- and sketching out a character with words is an art unto itself. I disagree that his delivery is pedestrian, as well -- there are moments when his writing is perfectly electric with energy.

I think he's considered pulp because he writes two or three books a year, and sells them by the boatload.

I can not copy or paste his work so I am going to have to type this directly from King's book, The Dark Tower. My contacts are bothering my eyes and I have poor eyesight so hopefully I didn't mess up in copying this from the book. Remember, this is a world that he invented for his fantasy series.

The desert was the apotheosis of all deserts, huge, standing next to the sky for what looked like an eternity in all directions. It was white and blinding and waterless and without feature save for the faint, cloudy haze of the mountains which sketched themselves on the horizon and the devilgrass which brought sweet dreams, nightmares, death. An occasional tombstone sign pointed the way, for once the drifted track that cut its way through the thick crust of alkali had been a highway. Coaches and buckas had followed it. The world had moved on since then. The world had emptied.

I like King's writing style but I admit, he has improved drastically as he gets older. Anyone who can invent the monster in It or fashion the world in the Gunslinger series is very creative.

(January 5, 2015 at 8:27 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote: The ones I've always cherished the most were the ones that shaped sadness into something sublime. Happiness is good, but everyone wants to share in your happiness. Grief is such a private place...pouring it out and shaping it into something for others to see...it's terrifying and has the potential to be appreciated by a smaller but much more in-tune set of individuals.

There are technical mistakes and theoretical jumps all over this -- but it is art, to me, because speaks to some really dark days I've lived, and lived through. Even without words, I know what the hell this song means.

On a humorous note, I tried to paint a spiral universe and ended up with a monstrous looking spider creature. My attempt failed. Much to my shock, my daughter loved the painting and stopped me from throwing it away. She said it looked like the eye of Cthulhu and now has it hanging on her bedroom wall. That was not what I was aiming for at all. LOL

(January 6, 2015 at 12:00 pm)Alex K Wrote:

(January 6, 2015 at 11:47 am)Parkers Tan Wrote: What that means in the context of this conversation is that sticking a fast technical run in a song can be useful to communicate a mood -- but it can too often turn the song into a vehicle for ego, and that seems to undermine its artistic value.

That's one of the peeves I and many have with many technical death metal bands (I assume that's not your cup of tea though).

I consider myself somewhat of a metalhead, but am not big on death metal. I'm not into the growling vocals and I'm bored with the machine-gun style kick drums. That said, I can enjoy the likes of Thorndendal, and Akerfeldt on guitar and Patterson on bass; the speed and technical musicianship is impressive. Often though it's just monotonous speed and unvaried scale runs. Sometimes I think that song solos could easily be interchanged if done in the right key. I get my fix now and again, but can't listen very long.

(January 6, 2015 at 12:00 pm)Alex K Wrote:

(January 6, 2015 at 11:47 am)Parkers Tan Wrote: What that means in the context of this conversation is that sticking a fast technical run in a song can be useful to communicate a mood -- but it can too often turn the song into a vehicle for ego, and that seems to undermine its artistic value.

That's one of the peeves I and many have with many technical death metal bands (I assume that's not your cup of tea though).

Oh, I'm no huge fan of death metal -- the vocals tend to put me off -- but I sometimes love the over-the-top technicality of a genre or band. There are times when an exceptionally intricate passage is exactly what is needed to convey a feeling.

As a guitarist, the great debate of the last forty years has been "speed vs feel" which to me is nonsense, an excluded middle. Sometimes speed is perfect for expressing the feeling in play at the moment: exhilaration, or anger, or fear, are all very well expressed by playing your ass off. That is where taste comes in: deploying your technique in the right place to make the statement you wish.

But yeah, my favorite death-metaller bought the farm a few years ago -- Chuck Schuldiner of Death.

On the other hand, bands like Dream Theater leave me cold. The energy isn't visceral, which to me is the essence of good music, no matter the genre or era. As much as I admire their technical ability, math rock doesn't move me emotionally. And there's nothing wrong with that.

---

(January 6, 2015 at 12:18 pm)Nope Wrote:

(January 6, 2015 at 12:06 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: In writing, plot and character are everything -- and sketching out a character with words is an art unto itself. I disagree that his delivery is pedestrian, as well -- there are moments when his writing is perfectly electric with energy.

I think he's considered pulp because he writes two or three books a year, and sells them by the boatload.

I can not copy or paste his work so I am going to have to type this directly from King's book, The Dark Tower. My contacts are bothering my eyes and I have poor eyesight so hopefully I didn't mess up in copying this from the book. Remember, this is a world that he invented for his fantasy series.

The desert was the apotheosis of all deserts, huge, standing next to the sky for what looked like an eternity in all directions. It was white and blinding and waterless and without feature save for the faint, cloudy haze of the mountains which sketched themselves on the horizon and the devilgrass which brought sweet dreams, nightmares, death. An occasional tombstone sign pointed the way, for once the drifted track that cut its way through the thick crust of alkali had been a highway. Coaches and buckas had followed it. The world had moved on since then. The world had emptied.

I like King's writing style but I admit, he has improved drastically as he gets older. Anyone who can invent the monster in It or fashion the world in the Gunslinger series is very creative.

There's a scene in The Stand where one of the protagonists, Frannie, must tell her domineering mother that she is pregnant out of wedlock, that is perhaps the best three thousand words of fiction I've ever read in my life; the words simply tremble and leap off the page, completely alive in the moment.

---

(January 6, 2015 at 12:23 pm)Nope Wrote: On a humorous note, I tried to paint a spiral universe and ended up with a monstrous looking spider creature. My attempt failed. Much to my shock, my daughter loved the painting and stopped me from throwing it away. She said it looked like the eye of Cthulhu and now has it hanging on her bedroom wall. That was not what I was aiming for at all. LOL

One reason I love playing improvisational music is that it leaves room for the Happy Accident.

(January 6, 2015 at 12:06 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: In writing, plot and character are everything -- and sketching out a character with words is an art unto itself. I disagree that his delivery is pedestrian, as well -- there are moments when his writing is perfectly electric with energy.

I think he's considered pulp because he writes two or three books a year, and sells them by the boatload.

Plot and character aren't everything in literature. They are two of the main three creative parts of a literary work, the third being composition. When people are considering what is and isn't a great work of literature, they evaluate it by using those components as criteria. Stephen King's composition just isn't on par with many other authors, and that is why many people consider him pulp.

The energy that comes from Stephen King's writing is due to the well-crafted characters and intriguing plot. His composition(which admittedly is intertwined with how you craft your characters, so he does have some skill there) doesn't really elicit much reaction. It's plain and straight forward, which is not what people are looking for when people are determining what is great literature.

(January 6, 2015 at 12:37 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: But yeah, my favorite death-metaller bought the farm a few years ago -- Chuck Schuldiner of Death.

hell yeah!
They're doing a revival tour lately, but I haven't seen them.

Quote:On the other hand, bands like Dream Theater leave me cold. The energy isn't visceral, which to me is the essence of good music, no matter the genre or era. As much as I admire their technical ability, math rock doesn't move me emotionally. And there's nothing wrong with that.

Funny that you mention them, because I would have done so in my reply even if you hadn't. I listened a lot to DT when I was younger, but in the past 10 years or so I ended up just not caring for them any more. In German I'd say I'm missing the life blood in the whole endeavour. To me it's lost all authenticity so much that I sometimes actively dislike what they do.

(January 6, 2015 at 12:14 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: And when checking off the technical boxes which determines that a piece is labeled art bogs the piece down and detracts from the message? Technical superiority doesn't translate into art any more than solid construction translates into beautiful architecture. It may be necessary for art, but it certainly isn't sufficient.

Of course, because ultimately art comes from an emotional connection with the medium that allows you fluidly manipulate it into a creative expression.

But that just proves my point that standards can be set for what is and isn't art, because you can evaluate a piece of art by looking at how developed that emotional connection was and its influence upon the final product. You see, evaluating art isn't just about the final product. It's also about evaluating the process involved.

---

(January 6, 2015 at 12:18 pm)Nope Wrote: The desert was the apotheosis of all deserts, huge, standing next to the sky for what looked like an eternity in all directions. It was white and blinding and waterless and without feature save for the faint, cloudy haze of the mountains which sketched themselves on the horizon and the devilgrass which brought sweet dreams, nightmares, death. An occasional tombstone sign pointed the way, for once the drifted track that cut its way through the thick crust of alkali had been a highway. Coaches and buckas had followed it. The world had moved on since then. The world had emptied.

I like King's writing style but I admit, he has improved drastically as he gets older. Anyone who can invent the monster in It or fashion the world in the Gunslinger series is very creative.

You've actually quoted one of few pieces of work that I felt that Stephen King demonstrated a true command of the English language. He's definitely got the talent there, I just don't think he's nurtured it. I think he focuses more on plot and character because that's what he wants to do with his writing. Unfortunately, that command of the English language died out as the Dark Tower progressed, and I refused to read beyond the fourth book.

So Faith, by which standard would you judge something like that?

(January 6, 2015 at 12:41 am)Jenny A Wrote: Yes, academically critically acclaimed "high" art has to jumped the shark. A medicine cabinet with all of the artist's hygiene detritus mounted on a gallery wall is not art. Much of this crap is no more than a snigger at those defining art as whatever an artist says art is----so, how about this? I say it's art!

I find that whenever the message an artist wants to communicate is dominant to the work itself, it is a little less interesting to me. It is edging toward visual propaganda.

(January 6, 2015 at 12:41 am)Jenny A Wrote: This is related to what I think of as the cult of originality. That is that whatever is most original is good. You can tell this kind of art simply by asking, "could anyone expand upon this?," "could it be improved, or is once enough?" If the answers are no and yes, then it's not art it's just different. Would the next artist's trash can full of whatever be better?

This is related to shock art. The idea being that if it offends enough people, it must be good. Poop paintings and "Piss Christ" featuring a crucifix in the artist's urine typify this form of "art."

Yep.

(January 6, 2015 at 12:41 am)Jenny A Wrote: And then there's art that requires an essay from the artist in order for the audience to understand it. Why not just submit the essay and have done with?

My sentiments exactly.

(January 6, 2015 at 12:41 am)Jenny A Wrote: With visual art, what the artist means may be no more than LOOK, and you will see it the way I see it.

Love your paintings. This is the sort I appreciate most though I also enjoy work that amounts to introspective exploration, work where the artist works very intuitively and responds to nuances as they emerge. I admit I enjoy the shark that J. Pollack jumped.