Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

On Unread Books

theparisreview.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–59 of 59 posts

Re: On Unread Books

#51

Post by keiferski »

derefr wrote: post #49
keiferski wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Modern art is an extremely vast field. I really wish this "modern art = scribble drawings" meme would die. Not to mention that modern != contemporary. 2. It's not really that complicated. Writing operates in the exact same way; without the context of our societal language, a novel would just be "meaningless and valueless" as it would simply be a bunch of black symbols on a piece of paper. This would likely be more…

> Modern art is an extremely vast field. I really wish this "modern art = scribble drawings" meme would die. Is there a name for the specific kind of modern art that has red canvases, soup cans, and splatter-painting as central examples? I'd be glad to change my usage if there were a clearer term. > Not to mention that modern != contemporary. I'm not sure what you mean here; I was using "modern art" to refer specific…

Is there a name for the specific kind of modern art that has red canvases, soup cans, and splatter-painting as central examples? I'd be glad to change my usage if there were a clearer term.

No, because there is no broad "type" that does such things.

I'm not sure what you mean here; I was using "modern art" to refer specifically to the works of the Modern Art movement—which tended to have a lot of 'scribble-drawings'—rather than more generally to "art made in modern times."

I'm not sure how you are aware of the Modern Art movement but somehow equate it to scribble drawings. You consider Picasso's work to be "scribble drawings"? Art made in the past ±30 years is not considered "modern art", it is considered "contemporary art." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_art

This is silly; a book can tell you a story without you needing to know anything about the time and place the book was written in. You need to know the language of the book, yes, but a book with a considerate author will often subtly teach you any jargon it uses, or the significance of cultural signifiers it refers to, etc. This is why outsider protagonists in fiction are so common.

You're missing my point. The language of the book (English) corresponds to the language of art. A lot of contemporary art is a reaction to things within its own field and cannot be really understood without understanding its context. If you don't understand its context (and have a hostile "they're just art snobs" attitude toward it) then no, you probably won't appreciate it. Not to mention the fact that again, contemporary art is truly a massive field filled with every possible variety of artist and intent, ranging from political statements to pure works of craftsmanship, and everything in between.

Ultimately, contemporary art has its own vocabulary. If you don't bother to learn it, don't expect to understand it. Furthermore, understanding a piece doesn't mean you like it or think it's a good piece of art. Whether contemporary artists should or should not aim to have their work intelligible to laymen is another question entirely.

Re: On Unread Books

#52

Post by sanderjd »

everyone wrote: post #20
sanderjd wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If all art suddenly disappeared it wouldnt really matter. Ugh. This is so arrogant. Take a step back, talk to some people outside this bubble, of different ages, from different parts of the world, and not just on the internet. Get a sense for how they want to live their lives, for what's important to them. Then come back to this opinion you hold so strongly and question it honestly.

What bubble? Please do tell. I hope you're not arrogantly making assumptions about me. If all art disappeared, sure almost everyone on the planet would be initially upset and unhappy about it. But we'd just continue to make more, humans make art compulsively and instinctively. Eg. In archaeology the signs of art are often equated with the presence of modern humans. Scientific discovery on the other hand does not come…

I was referring to the Hacker News bubble.

I just think your claims are wrong. Human creativity is instinctual, whether it is applied to artistic or scientific endeavors. You're drawing a bright line that I don't believe exists.

Re: On Unread Books

#53

Post by [deleted] »

everyone wrote: post #28
c22 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also art has no endgame, with enough science and technology we could create AI, the technological singularity, explore the galaxy, achieve literal immortality. It sounds like in your scenario art is the endgame. What else will we do with our immortal selves once we've reached technological singularity?

Yeah, once we've done that we can relax. Now, when our very survival is in question is not a good time to squander our limited resources on decadence. .. Its like, youre starving but instead of going out to hunt you spend all day masturbating. Thats us as a species right now :)

[deleted]

Re: On Unread Books

#54

Post by floofyfloofer »

coldtea wrote: post #36
ukulele wrote: post #3

Strategizing about how to discuss a book you haven't read has to be the ultimate form of pretentiousness.

Or mere utility/functionality (save time not reading some books AND advance your scholarly/literary/etc career as someone who reads and knows them). A con isn't "pretentious". People who have actually read a book can be much more pretentious about it -- in the sense of acting as if this gave them some unique insight over other mere mortals who haven't read it.

Any book worth reading should be worth reading because of that insight. Which might be a way to say that most words aren't writing, and especially these.

Re: On Unread Books

#55

Post by lj3 »

everyone wrote: post #31
lj3 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're talking content. I'm talking neurobiology.

Can you elaborate? post some links or references? Sounds interesting.

Here's a decent article to start with: https://journal.thriveglobal.com/how-books-and-television-af...

If you do some searching, you'll find lots of ink spilled on the subject of "does TV rot your brain" and the cognitive benefits of reading.

Re: On Unread Books

#56

Post by Mediterraneo10 »

lj3 wrote: post #55
everyone wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you elaborate? post some links or references? Sounds interesting.

Here's a decent article to start with: https://journal.thriveglobal.com/how-books-and-television-af... If you do some searching, you'll find lots of ink spilled on the subject of "does TV rot your brain" and the cognitive benefits of reading.

The article you link to speaks about television, not cinema. Furthermore, its claim that the visual medium encourages passivity:

"you can just sit back and watch everything unfold without effort on your part. You’re less likely to pause to reflect on what’s happening."

does not apply to the considerable number of filmmakers (and occasional television content producers) who employ Brechtian alienation techniques.

Re: On Unread Books

#57

Post by lj3 »

Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #56
lj3 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a decent article to start with: https://journal.thriveglobal.com/how-books-and-television-af... If you do some searching, you'll find lots of ink spilled on the subject of "does TV rot your brain" and the cognitive benefits of reading.

The article you link to speaks about television, not cinema. Furthermore, its claim that the visual medium encourages passivity: "you can just sit back and watch everything unfold without effort on your part. You’re less likely to pause to reflect on what’s happening." does not apply to the considerable number of filmmakers (and occasional television content producers) who employ Brechtian alienation techniques.

Don't be dense. That sentence is from the reporter trying to make a study easier to understand to the common folk. Actually read the study referenced. There are also other studies that compare content and find it doesn't make a difference on the impact of the brain.

Re: On Unread Books

#58

Post by everyone »

lj3 wrote: post #57
Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article you link to speaks about television, not cinema. Furthermore, its claim that the visual medium encourages passivity: "you can just sit back and watch everything unfold without effort on your part. You’re less likely to pause to reflect on what’s happening." does not apply to the considerable number of filmmakers (and occasional television content producers) who employ Brechtian alienation techniques.

Don't be dense. That sentence is from the reporter trying to make a study easier to understand to the common folk. Actually read the study referenced. There are also other studies that compare content and find it doesn't make a difference on the impact of the brain.

Just an idea,, Maybe all TV input looks the same to us, as regards its effect on the brain, but in reality its not.. Our tools for measuring anything to do with the brain/cognition are extremely crude currently.

eg. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/scicurious-brain/ignobe...

To use computers as an analogy. If you were to examine it only physically, a hard drive filled with random garbage would look the same as one filled with our greatest works.

Re: On Unread Books

#59

Post by lj3 »

everyone wrote: post #58
lj3 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't be dense. That sentence is from the reporter trying to make a study easier to understand to the common folk. Actually read the study referenced. There are also other studies that compare content and find it doesn't make a difference on the impact of the brain.

Just an idea,, Maybe all TV input looks the same to us, as regards its effect on the brain, but in reality its not.. Our tools for measuring anything to do with the brain/cognition are extremely crude currently. eg. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/scicurious-brain/ignobe... To use computers as an analogy. If you were to examine it only physically, a hard drive filled with random garbage would look the same as on…

What's your motivation behind this comment? Do you really want to live in a world where some of humanity's greatest achievements are seen the same as random garbage? In any case, current brain scans are crude, but they measure function, not data. It's like putting an ammeter over an ethernet cable. You're not going to be able to see the data flowing over the wire, but you'll definitely be able to tell that data isn't flowing when it should be. You can also physically inspect a computer and see when a capacitor has blown.
Post reply on HN