Should art soothe or reduce suffering?
Or, for clarity: should art, and in specific literature, confront reality and better it, or is only for comforting persons who read it?
>>7822800
A piece's objective should be determined by its creator.
Confronting reality and 'making it better' is escapism
>>7822800
>Should art soothe or reduce suffering?
Both, it depends on the circumstances and on the author intentions.
There you go, OP, now you can close the thread.
>>7822800
?'Good fiction's job is to comfort the disturbed and disturb the comfortable.'
>>7823040
>sure, but take for instance a city where "everything is bad": could someone write something without addressing such problems?
It's the author's job (or rather should be) to convey the characters feeling very natural to their surroundings since that's all they've known (if that's the case). The author fails if he blatantly writes, "haha people marrying animals that's weird." If you're trying to say if a character lives in a dystopia and just lives their day, that's not much a 'book'.
>how so?
We feed on joy and comfort, things like books, sports, and other things are used to make us more comfortable and to ignore our problem(s). God(s), an example, is one, many 'creation' stories from all different cultures have been made. The idea of a higher being, being unprovable and undisprovable, puts comfort into some people since many are afraid of what happens when they die.
>should art
Stop't reading
>>7823059
sure, but how about no?
>>7823066
this is a nice quote and is actually fitting
>>7823071
>that's not much a 'book'
I agree, that would be borderline investigative journalism
>puts comfort into some people since many are afraid of what happens when they die.
It does comfort, but does it reduce suffering (does it cut the causes?)
>>7822800
both, if it likeswhat i don't like is art that exists purely to corrupt or destroy, and i don't mean cynical nihilistic art that just reflects one's own internal suffering or whatever, i mean art intended to hurt the world
>>7823100
>does this mean
on some level i think it does
>>7823100
>>7823076
not familiar with his thoughts but bear with me:
in a world that actually has necessity of action to better it, is it just, or even possible, ignoring these problems?
>>7823113
>both, if it likes
I don't think this is possible: take for example the italian author Saviano and his book "Gomorra", he literally denounced a whole mafia system that was running the whole south causing outrage in the public. This is the exact opposite of comforting, this is slapping in the face the public, but it is denouncing the problem and so, also reducing the suffering.
>>7823143
Oh yeah I should have clarified that I meant to say both are good, I hadn't thought about if you could do them together.
>>7823100
>does this mean that if a piece achieves something other than its creator's intent, it fails?
It depends, I guess: if it's the polar opposite of course it fails, but if it inspires some sentiment, then it may not be so failed.
Point is: if the objective was causing awe in the reader, and it does not cause awe it fails, but if it actually addresses some problems, while being written badly, is it useful?
>>7822800
Art should comfort the discomforted and discomfort the comforted.
>>7823202
w-r-o-n-g
>>7823239
Nice arguments here friendo
>>7823291
platitudes arent arguments either, comforto
>>7823297
Well, do you care about elaborating your thoughts about this discussion?
>>7823308
This much: that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
:^)
>>7823297
clichés are important to life if not art
>suffering
nice slave morality you got going on there pal
>confront reality
I don't know bro, last time I remember what we define as art doesn't pop into existence from a vacuum but is created by stimulated individuals and cultivates a better appreciation of reality/life, might be my memory tho
bamp
