/lit/ - Literature

Who the fuck says I don't paint?

>>15890540
why not both? i love books with pictures

>>15890562
post pics of book with good paintings on the cover

>>15890569

>>15890558
what does this pic mean desu???????????

>>15890569
it seems penguin chooses the most exquisite paintings.

>>15890540
im more into painting than writing. i dont browse lit for the writing aspect

>>15890540
Because I like writing more

>>15890540
I write and draw so comics are a good balance for me desu.

same craft, different material

>>15890540
I don't write or paint. I have no artistic talent of any variety.

>>15890569

>>15890650
Thinking is an art

>>15890694
Right. And philosophy is the means by which a man gets good at the art of thinking

>>15890650
philosophy is art, if youre any good at philosophy.

>>15890540

I don't do either. I just read books and look at images.

>>15890694
Art is thinking.

>>15890540
I can only count about 2 paintings which have managed to sustain a rigorous philosophical argument

Why yes I am an Anglo how could you tell

>>15890540
The image and the word are both part of the same artistic operation of the logos, why both are useless without the other

>>15890540

Painting is fine, but it's STATIC. It's flat in one spatial dimension and also flat in the dimension of time.

Sculpture is less flat spatially, but still flat in time.

Music moves in time. Film moves in time. Dance moves in time. Literature (as it's experienced) moves in time.

The only art form which is static in time *and makes a virtue of this* is architecture. Something as big as a building is better static than moving. The sense of solidity and security and grandeur is heightened by the immobility. But pictures would be better moving than static; it's just that we only learned how to do that in the last hundred years.

>>15893343
Not really, one does not immediately take in the whole image

Is this anon still here?

>>15893354

But that's not a virtue. A painting isn't designed to be looked at in stages - ideally you would take it all in in one go. If it WERE designed to be scanned piece-by-piece, it would be better presented as a film or cartoon moving over the surface at a zoomed-in scale.

There isn't a good way for indie artists to monetize their work. Writers have Amazon self publishing

>>15893396
>A painting isn't designed to be looked at in stages

Yes it is. That is the whole point of composition - design - to direct the eye.

>>15890649
no.

>>15893430

No. A painting doesn't primarily and intentionally exist in time, and insofar as that ever happens, it's a minute coincidental effect which is developed properly in cinema. If you think that's the main aspect (or even one of the main aspects) of painting, you're basically saying that painting is a primitive first step towards cinema, and nothing more. That might be true or it might not be, but it's even more extreme than the point I was making.

>>15893304
>argument
Art in general isn't for you

>>15893359
This guy Ruskin's great nephew or something?

>>15893449
It's the 'static' dynamism of painting in this way that makes it more of a high art, more metaphysically true, than something dependent on time or 'stages'. The ideal is not that it is all seen at once as this interpretation runs counter to the intention behind composition.

>>15890540
Because architecture is actually the highest art.

>>15890540
Why not piano?

>>15893583
Do you know of any good books on architecture?

>Henry Dager
>writes and "paints"
>"The Story of the Vivian Girls, in What Is Known as the Realms of the Unreal, of the Glandeco-Angelinian War Storm, Caused by the Child Slave Rebellion"