/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11029080]

Who is the greatest for each art form? Bach seems to be the only consensus greatest, with Shakespeare more controversially so in literature, and painting far from having a consensus, with Da Vinci or Michelangelo being the most probable contenders. I have to ask you though /lit/ which artists are the greatest of their form? Where do Beethoven and Mozart rank behind Bach, where do Dante, Milton, and Joyce stand in relation to Shakespeare, and how about Picasso, Caravaggio, Bosch, et al., in relation to the Italians? If you have opinions on Film on Architecture share them.

[Anonymous No.11029133]

>>11029080
The idea of someone being the "best" of any artform is facile. Best is an entirely subjective term that will never achieve any meaningful consensus. For example, to state who is the best painter you first have to define what the goal of painting is. Is it photorealism? Conjuring emotion? Depicting universal human experiences? Innovation? You'll never get a consensus.

[Anonymous No.11029250]

It's pretty much agreed across the art world that Goya is the most important painter of the modern era, if not ever. Silver and bronze also go to Spaniards: Picasso and Velazquez. If that doesn't give Dürer the recognition he deserves, good; fuck the Germans.
But of course we can split painting into as many artificial forms as we like. Rembrandt was the best portrait artist; you won't hear any academic argue otherwise. Titian did the best ceiling frescoes, which ain't fucking easy, and really isn't the same art form as sitting in Montmartre with an easel.

>>11029133
I suspect OP is hoping we can ignore this obvious point and allow a fun little spot of debate.

[Anonymous No.11029286]

>>11029080
>Da Vinci or Michelangelo being the most probable contenders.
Van Gogh and Caravaggio are the best.

[Anonymous No.11029315]

>>11029080
Bach's not the greatest, though...

[Anonymous No.11029317]

>>11029080
Bach isn't even that good. He is revered because of historical revisionism, conservatives revived him for political reasons after the revolution. He wasn't even the best Baroque composer.
I don't think a best could be established in any art. Perhaps easiest to do in painting, but I think it would be very difficult even then to prove an objective best.

[Anonymous No.11029333]

Ford
Pynchon
Wood

[Anonymous No.11029356]

>>11029317
>>11029315
Bach is easily the greatest. Everything is in his music. Get lost contrarians

[Anonymous No.11029363]

Me personally, I'd place Beethoven over Bach. Not sure what the literary parallel would be, feels like Bach was the paragon of the forms he worked in, Beethoven was as well, but then created new ones. The evolution from his first to last piano sonatas, or symphonies, is incredible and consistently profound, I think.

I can't think of a writer whose works change while remaining consistently excellent like Beethoven (would be intersted!). Shakespeare seems like a Bach parallel though at a superficial glance (more familiar with the latter myself).

[Anonymous No.11029370]

>Bach
I don't know any of the theory behind Baroque, but it doesn't strike me as having any of the qualities of the highest forms of art.
I like Bach a lot though.

[Anonymous No.11029383]

Duke Ellington and T monk - best jazz composers.
John Coltrane and Miles - best post bop jazz improvisors
Charlie Parker and Pops Satchmo - best bebop and pre bop improvisors respectively

[Anonymous No.11029388]

>>11029370
Bach is the greatest. Don't kid yourself.

[Anonymous No.11029411]

Question for Bach people and music experts in general: Why is it that I enjoy Mozart but not Bach OR Beethoven?

My one friend loves Beethoven and finds both Bach and Mozart too simple and formalistically hidebound. My other friend loves Bach and finds both Mozart and Beethoven too formless and "expressive." I'm just a dabbler so I make no claims about the quality of my personal taste, but by nature, I find Bach boring (agreeing with one friend) and Beethoven too formless (agreeing with the other. Somehow I'm a Mozart Goldilocks.

Are there any good theories of music grounded in a non-reductive philosophical anthropology? Can I learn more about why certain people like certain music, or how to like different kinds of music? It can't really just be subjective

[Anonymous No.11029422]

>>11029370
its embarassing, in fact, the more you know about music and literature, the more embarassing they are, but Bach really is the pinnacle of music, and thus everything following him is degeneration, and the same could be said for Joyce or Melville. Sad!

[Anonymous No.11029439]

beehtoven has more, but itaots and laughing stock reach the same heights

shakespeare

van gogh

film is pseud but godard

[Anonymous No.11029445]

Wagner
Joyce
Milton
Bosch or Goya
Michelangelo
Hidetaka Miyazaki

[Anonymous No.11029465]

>Crtl + F
>No Botticelli or Raphael

Wew

[Anonymous No.11029478]

Michelangelo is considered the greatest artist of all time considering his mastery of painting and sculpture and his proficiency in architecture. It would be hard to convince someone there is a better sculptor.

[Anonymous No.11029490]

>>11029478
>confusing ability with the actual expression
embarassing

[Anonymous No.11029501]

>>11029478
I sculpt your mind with my word bitch

[Anonymous No.11029542]

>>11029411
Hmm
I'm a jazz knowitall not so much classical. But Beethoven and Mozart are romantic era, Bach is a few hundred years prior. Bach is very mathematical.and formulaic, though he is my favorite. Mozart was romantic but rich, and Beethoven was just heady, takes more time to get into.

[Anonymous No.11029559]

>>11029542
OMG ^_*
I looove~~ Jazz~~ haha!
To Many Zooz!!! ;-P

Hahaha :D

[Anonymous No.11029570]

shakespeare is the greatest writer, very possibly our greatest man. milton and dante (by your leave) don't rank at all. homer and cervantes would be better choices.
i'd say mozart for music, along with the three B's
and for painting; the greatest are velazquez, rembrandt, and countless other spaniards. not the renaissance painters

[Anonymous No.11029572]

>>11029542
Norman Mailer felt the same way but you're illiterate so no point in including him

[Anonymous No.11029590]

Film doesn't have one. There's no one overwhelming figure, the discipline is too fragmented. If one could combine Griffith, Murnau, Eisenstein, Chaplin, Keaton, Welles, Hitchcock, Ford, Kurosawa, Bergman, Fellini, Godard, Spielberg and Kubrick into a single person then that person would be the Shakespeare of film.

[Anonymous No.11029595]

Homer, Sophocles, Euripides, Plato, Dante, Ludovico Ariosto, Calderon, Lope de Vega, John Donne, and Gustave Flaubert are greater than Shakespeare.

Shakespeare was a very great artist, but most of his fame is due to German propaganda.

[Anonymous No.11029611]

>>11029590
>Hitchcock, Ford, Spielberg, Kubrick

You are cinematic ally illiterate.

>>11029570
Do you even understand Italian and Spanish? Cervantes is a nobody compared to Dante, and I've read most of their works in the original; Velazquez is a fake compared to Piero di Cosimo and Duccio.

Choosing Brahms over Monteverdi shows how ignorant you are of art.

[Anonymous No.11029612]

>>11029590
welles is the shakespeare of film, surely.
but a comparison might be arrogant, and unnecessary. welles stands on his own: the greatest of american directors: very probably the greatest of all directors.

besides half of those directors are rubbish and you missed off renoir and cocteau

[Anonymous No.11029617]

>>11029611
I forgot to say Cervantes is my favorite novelist.

Still a nobody compared to Dante, just like Shakespeare compared to Cervantes' superior contemporary Lope de Vega.

[Anonymous No.11029627]

>>11029611
You're being a pseud faggot, stop it.

[Anonymous No.11029628]

>>11029612
>very probably the greatest of all directors

He has one great film - F for Fake -, but the rest is average. Parajanov, Buñuel, Mizoguchi, Murnau, Kiarostami, after-40's Eisenstein, and Tarkovsky are clearly the greatest directors of all.

[Anonymous No.11029640]

>>11029627
Yeah, certainly. I hope you are aware that bardolatry is nothing but romantic fabrication. You are having your taste guided by people who couldn't stop talking about pretty flowers and had the habit of wearing yellow pants before killing themselves.

[Anonymous No.11029648]

>>11029612
Welles would have been, if he hadn't been such a retard with money and studio politics and been unable to make a film on his own terms post Kane.

Also fuck off, every one deserve to be there though admittedly I missed the two you mentioned.

You remember way back when, when I told you to fuck off. I didn't mean that, you're a good guy.

[Anonymous No.11029655]

>>11029627
I should also add that the very founder of bardolatry in Europe, namely Voltaire, regretted very intensely the perpetration of this crime. It was too late, however, and the damage was eternal.

Since Voltaire and Tolstoy have no value to an Anglo, for this poor race cannot but behold its own sad little navel 24 hours a day, I must also mention that Milton thought Shakespeare inferior to the Greeks, which he was and is.

[Anonymous No.11029656]

>>11029611
listen, cervantes, later shakespeare, and the iliad are life; tragedy salted with humour. paradise lost and the inferno are literary works of almost superhuman eloquence, written for fame not profit, and seldom read except as a solemn intellectual task. and vis a vis velazquez, there's no comparison, as far as being artists is concerned

>shows how ignorant you are of art
why are you going on like that?

[Anonymous No.11029662]

>>11029640
Better that than mindless contrarianism brought about by a lack of positive attention during childhood.

[Anonymous No.11029667]

>>11029648
Hitchcock and Ford are understandable, maybe even Kubrick, but Spielberg is a Hollywood fake. You cannot pretend you have good taste in cinema when you enjoy fast-pacing and superficial special effects pornography. You have the brains of a young child.

[Anonymous No.11029673]

>>11029648
this was a myth. lots of geniuses are called 'difficult' aren't they. and he did make a couple of films after his kane that weren't savaged by the studio. and the rest are flawed masterpieces

[Anonymous No.11029681]

>>11029655
milton was a minor poet

[Anonymous No.11029685]

>>11029667
Spielberg changed cinema forever and has an incredible eye and pacing. Anyone who isn't a total fucking pseud can recognize that. He isn't the greatest ever (he's intellectually shallow as fuck) but he has a way of injecting such life and wonder into the limpest of material. Bergman is a genius but he's also fucking boring as shit. One cannot be 'teh greatest' if one is boring as shit.

[Anonymous No.11029691]

Shakespeare
Welles
Beethoven
Turner

staymad

[Anonymous No.11029694]

>>11029570
>very possibly our greatest man

[Anonymous No.11029696]

>>11029673
All of his films post Kane (with the exception of maybe F for Fake) were either savaged by the studio or were severely hampered by an inability to procure proper funding. This is why the sound work for Othello and Chimes of Midnight is utter shit.

[Anonymous No.11029701]

>>11029490
this post is embarrassing. He's remembered for the expression. But I know you've never seen them in person anon.

[Anonymous No.11029702]

>>11029080
>Shakespeare
He wrote plays. He was the XVI century Josh Wheaton.

[Anonymous No.11029705]

>>11029628
horrid choice of directors, besides eisenstein, who, while undoubtedly great, was the most overrated of all the great directors. and welles made at least 4 masterpieces in film (f for fake included) and don't forget other side of the wind is coming out very soon

[Anonymous No.11029707]

>>11029611
>You are cinematic ally illiterate.
Including Spielberg makes perfect sense since Shakespeare combined the talents of poetic genius with many popular devices for the masses.

Ford, Hitchcock, and Kubrick are all great directors, though. You're just a peasant pleb.

[Anonymous No.11029708]

>>11029696
Didn't Criterion remaster Chimes at Midnight? How is the sound in that?

[Anonymous No.11029713]

>>11029250
>It's pretty much agreed across the art world that Goya is the most important painter of the modern era, if not ever. Silver and bronze also go to Spaniards: Picasso and Velazquez
Making grandoise claims without some spurce is bleak

[Anonymous No.11029714]

>>11029250
>Goya
Might as well say Duchamp

[Anonymous No.11029715]

>>11029628
>He has one great film - F for Fake
Kane and F for Fake aren't even his best. Those would be Touch of Evil and unmutilated portions of Ambersons imo

[Anonymous No.11029718]

>>11029696
if you mean othello's gregorian soundtrack, that was fixed on the rerelease. i don't know what you mean by chimes at midnight's sound.
and even shakespeare was hampered by circumstance.

>>11029702
he also wrote those sonnets

[Anonymous No.11029723]

>>11029707
that's alright, but spielberg made pretty bad films generally

[Anonymous No.11029725]

>>11029611
>Cervantes is a nobody compared to Dante, and I've read most of their works in the original; Velazquez is a fake compared to Piero di Cosimo and Duccio.
t. butthurt Italian
Cervantes created modern literature as we know it and the most universal work of literature just behind the Bible. Dante wrote a beautiful poem. They should not even be mentioned in the same sentence

[Anonymous No.11029728]

>>11029714
goya is considered an old master

[Anonymous No.11029735]

>>11029718
I mean the post synch dialogue that doesn't match up with the image and sounds like it was recorded on another planet.
Being hampered by circumstance when you're writing a play is an irritant but manageable. Being hampered by circumstance when making a film which costs a shitload of money is another thing altogether.

[Anonymous No.11029736]

>>11029656
>Inferno

You bloody fool.

First of all, Shakespeare was the one who wrote for fame, inserting stupid jokes and patriotic nonsense in his plays, just in order to gain the sympathy from his extremely illiterate audience. Dante did it partially out of love for fame, partially out of patriotic reasons (genuine ones: unlike Shakespeare, he loved his homeland truly, and participated in wars as well as in very intense political disputes, and knew the bitter taste of exile), and mainly because of theological/philosophical considerations. Even if he had done it for fame, however, this means nothing. The intention is irrelevant. 'Marley and Me' is a shit book, even if written out of incommensurate love, while Pindar's odes, written for the sole reason of winning prizes and fames during the Greek Olympic festivals, are major works of the highest poetry.

Second, saying Shakespeare is life is a meaningless assertion.

Third, and this shows your great ignorance, the belief that the Inferno is in any way the richest, most technically accomplished or most profound section of the Commedia is another piece of disgraceful romantic propaganda to which you are the victim, and putting Dante and Milton in the same sentence is definitive proof that you know zero Italian, let alone Dante's Italian, and have no contact whatsoever with the style of the poet, which is the most direct in all of literature and the absolute opposite of Milton's.

>>11029662
Mindless? I love Shakespeare and have translated some of his sonnets, but I read things in the original, and read them well enough to notice the absurd propaganda that has been raised around the bard, who was not the best English writer, and perhaps not even the second best, for Chaucer is objective better, and Donne is probably so too.

You can disagree with me, but you cannot say I am mindless in my opinions. The structure of Shakespeare's plays is faulty, his language too rhetorical, his characters sometimes are ridiculously stupid (the famous change of opinion in Hamlet, for instance), and oftentimes he does things in search of crude, superficial effects. Wilde's humor was more refined than Shakespeare's.

Dante also has a few lines which are very crude, but they're done in the most direct manner possible, and thus achieve a crudity which can only be seen as emanating from the mouth of a Medieval man. Dante heard crudity in the streets, Shakespeare heard it when talking shit among his fellow high-class poets. (Another curious distinction: neither Dante, Cervantes, de Vega or Calderon had anything against poor people, but Shakespeare seemed to despise them, thus showing his limitation as an analyst of the human existence.)

[Anonymous No.11029738]

>>11029728
So is Manet

[Anonymous No.11029749]

>>11029445
Nice

[Anonymous No.11029751]

>>11029718
Sheakespeare is Lope de Vega/Calderón de la Barca tier. He is not even the best writer of the Barroque let alone in history

[Anonymous No.11029756]

>>11029736
>read them well enough to notice the absurd propaganda that has been raised around the bard, who was not the best English writer,
If English is your second language, you will probably never be able to appreciate the poetics of Shakespeare.
>Chaucer is objective better
Holy shit lol

You seem to be hung up on the crudeness of Shakespeare's plays. The proportions and devices in them exist only as supporting elements of his genius poetic texture, which has never been surpassed. There are hardly ten lines in Shakespeare without a slip, but those ten are always top tier.

[Anonymous No.11029763]

>>11029735
well that's alright. picasso paints unrealistic faces. can you look past it? sink into the feeling? orson welles didn't think it was important.
and money isn't a creative issue. shakespeare had to write his plays in a way that they could be performed at the globe (a very large stage) with sometimes lots of extras, which meant long pointless speeches. you know

[Anonymous No.11029766]

>>11029738
no he isn't

[Anonymous No.11029767]

>>11029736
>Chaucer is objective better,

Chaucer is dogshit and a drain on my vast intellectual resources. Bum jokes set to doggerel written by an insecure self-deprecating suck-up brainlet.

Don't reply to this or I'll call your dad.

[Anonymous No.11029769]

>>11029681
Agreed.

>>11029685
Zero influence on Tarr, Weerasethakul, Sorrentino or any other of the best contemporary filmmakers.

>>11029681
Anglos are fools who think otherwise.

>>11029705
My choice is the best one possible.

>>11029707
But he isn't the greatest for the cinematic art form, which is what OP asked.

>>11029715
The Magnificent Ambersons is horrible, and Touch of Evil is nothing but a cheap thrill.

>>11029725
He only created modern literature because your lit professor told you that. Read his goddamned predecessors and realize there was no huge leap forward, only a small, logical step.

The most universal work of literature after the Bible is Fifty Shades of Grey, if you wanna go by the popularity metrics...

[Anonymous No.11029776]

>>11029763

Picasso wanted them to look like that. Welles didn't want them to sound like that, with good reason it sounds shit.

[Anonymous No.11029784]

>>11029769
Dude all those filmmakers you listed are pseud-tier who will be forgotten in ten years.

[Anonymous No.11029804]

>>11029769
>He only created modern literature because your lit professor told you that.
No the focused from narrative to character building had been a slow process that had been happening in Spanish literarure and culminated with Cervantes. If you read any prose outside of Spanish in that period you will just see the same bloated narratives about knights,mythologia and the flavour of the month poetry while in Spain people were writting about beggars,prostitutes and abortions.
>Fifty Shades of Grey, if you wanna go by the popularity metrics...
The book that has been translated to most languages other than the bible is el Quijote and it is the second most printed book in history. 50 shades of grey is a drop in the ocean compared to it

[Anonymous No.11029806]

>>11029356
Fake news.
By 'everything', you mean he was an autist who didn't know when to stop making a racket.

[Anonymous No.11029810]

>>11029756
>his genius poetic texture, which has never been surpassed

Either you read at least Latin, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, French, and Provençal besides English or else you have no right to talk about 'poetic texture' in the context of Western Civilization.

>When in disgrace with fortune and men's eyes
>I all alone beweep my outcast state,
>And trouble deaf heaven with my bootless cries,
>And look upon myself, and curse my fate,

'In disgrace with fortune' - empty rhetorical drivel; 'and curse my fate', common phrase, useless, and repetitive since he already made it clear he's crying to the skies.

>Wishing me like to one more rich in hope,
>Featured like him, like him with friends possessed,
>Desiring this man's art, and that man's scope,
>With what I most enjoy contented least;

Great poetry.

>Yet in these thoughts my self almost despising,
>Haply I think on thee, and then my state,
>Like to the lark at break of day arising
>From sullen earth, sings hymns at heaven's gate;

Everything absolutely common place. Good cadences and a nice 'rise of an image' in the third line, making the verses brighter, but otherwise a completely common thought, nothing special, nothing truly touching like you have in the best parts of Dante. It doesn't reveal anything.

>For thy sweet love remembered such wealth brings
>That then I scorn to change my state with kings.

Any post-Petrarchean writer could have written that. By 'any' I mean 'any', and this can be applied to 60% of what Shakespeare did, which is why he wasn't seen as a genius by his contemporaries, who merely though him a very, very good playwright, but giving him less fame than the French gave to Moliere, for instance, who was indeed superior.

[Anonymous No.11029813]

>>11029736
>You bloody fool
we can just talk normally, you know
>Shakespeare was the one who wrote for fame
shakespeare wrote for entertainment.
>inserting stupid jokes and patriotic nonsense in his plays, just in order to gain the sympathy from his extremely illiterate audience
so did homer

you're waffling on about god knows what at the end there

[Anonymous No.11029817]

>>11029776
picasso didn't painstakingly make them look like that. he did what welles did; created without regard for the niceties

[Anonymous No.11029818]

Yeah bach is cool and all, but have you heard 6ix9ine?

[Anonymous No.11029820]

>>11029422
lmao
Bachlieber also thinks BRRRRAAAAAAPPPP is a good description of thunder sounds.
All you need to know about their ears.

[Anonymous No.11029828]

>>11029810
>'In disgrace with fortune' - empty rhetorical drivel; 'and curse my fate', common phrase, useless, and repetitive since he already made it clear he's crying to the skies.
What do I care about a few cherrypicked verses, not even his best? One stanza does not prove anything. I never said that all of his lines were great. In fact, I made clear my position is the contrary one.
Incidentally, your idea of "great poetry" reveals that you know almost nothing about Elizabethan verse. That specimen is quite commonplace.

[Anonymous No.11029830]

>>11029370
You're right. Bach is not high art. It was the muzak of its time. When you listen to it you don't picture anything about the age, apart from servants wandering castle corridors and serving dying monarchs oblivious to their plight.

[Anonymous No.11029834]

>>11029810
>which is why he wasn't seen as a genius by his contemporaries
Many of them did consider him to be a genius.
>He was not of an age, but for all time!
This was written soon after his death.

[Anonymous No.11029841]

>>11029804
First of all, the change 'from narrative to character building' was the most common thing in Medieval poetry, Dante being the prime example, mainly because the whole narrative of the Commedia is nothing but an illustration of character building. Second, as far as prose is concerned, any 'originality' you could hope to find in Cervantes (whom I love) can be found in the Lazarillo de Tormes instead, except it doesn't deal with the whole satire of the caballerias novels.

>The book that has been translated to most languages other than the bible is el Quijote and it is the second most printed book in history. 50 shades of grey is a drop in the ocean compared to it

It sold more and did it much faster.

[Anonymous No.11029842]

>>11029411
Progressions and timing most likely.

[Anonymous No.11029845]

>>11029080
Da Vinci does not belong. The Sistine Chapel is better than anything he ever did, and then when you factor in Michelangelo’s Pieta and David, it really isn’t close.

[Anonymous No.11029848]

>>11029828
I chose that one out of chance, by opening by copy of his sonnets. I thought it was an objective method.

>>11029834
>This was written soon after his death.

About Shakespeare and everyone else who became the subject of a poetic epitaph back then.

[Anonymous No.11029854]

>>11029542
>Bach is a few hundred years prior
Bach is actually the end of the Baroque era, and Mozart was born around that time.

[Anonymous No.11029864]

Anyway, I am probably going away now because no Anglo will ever be convinced that Shakespeare was not the single best man to have ever lived, so it is useless to discuss with such a bunch of monolingual abominations.

Fare thee well! and if for ever, still for ever, fare thee well!

(Byron was mediocre too.)

[Anonymous No.11029865]

>>11029848
>About Shakespeare and everyone else who became the subject of a poetic epitaph back then.
Bullshit copout since this one came from the pen of another great writer of the time, and describes the appeal of Shakespeare accurately.
>>11029848
>I chose that one out of chance, by opening by copy of his sonnets. I thought it was an objective method.
Why would it be objective when I made no statement as to the average quality of his lines? Can't you read at all?
And again, your choice of "great" poetry is almost indistinguishable from the poems of the time.

[Anonymous No.11029872]

>>11029845
Or the Last Judgement

[Anonymous No.11029874]

>>11029864
>hop in a thread claiming shakespeare wasn't the greatest
>post some of shakespeare's most mediocre work
>"see! I told u so!"
yep, he's a bootyblasted esl

[Anonymous No.11029876]

>saying shakespeare is best writer

but have you read italian, provencal, french, japanese, chinese, persian, or the greeks yet?

[Anonymous No.11029882]

>>11029465
Raphael doesn’t compare to other Italians, but he was most definitely a Prodigy. If only he had lived longer.

[Anonymous No.11029885]

>>11029876
>japanese, chinese, persian
my sides

[Anonymous No.11029893]

>>11029810
the ancients at least waited until homer and virgil were decently dead before they paid them such honours

[Anonymous No.11029895]

>>11029885
Marshall Hodgson (pbuh) compared the golden age of persian poetry to the italian renaissance, you must be a pleb

[Anonymous No.11029899]

>>11029080
You know, I really love Marcel Duchamp. I don't necessarily think he's the greatest artist ever, but maybe one of the most innovative, which counts for something.

[Anonymous No.11029901]

>>11029864
i'd be so embarrassed to post this

[Anonymous No.11029902]

>>11029363
Beethoven's 9th goes on about 10 minutes too long. Should end after the final Ode to Joy.

[Anonymous No.11029907]

>>11029899
he was wrong

[Anonymous No.11029908]

>>11029895
>some guy compared the Bible to L Ron hubbards Dianetics, looks like Scientology is just as big as christianity, checkmate

[Anonymous No.11029910]

>>11029899
He's the last artist in some ways

[Anonymous No.11029911]

>>11029876
No Anglos will ever do that. Learning a foreign language is too hard for them. They base their judgments on Penguin classics 'translations'.

[Anonymous No.11029916]

>>11029911
>implying what you're writing counts as English

[Anonymous No.11029917]

>>11029865
>Bullshit copout since this one came from the pen of another great writer of the time, and describes the appeal of Shakespeare accurately.

Dozens of examples of the same thing happening in the epitaphs of other writers, including in much more extended and dignified form. Don't expect me to cite them, because I won't, since you wouldn't understand the languages anyway.

[Anonymous No.11029919]

>>11029907
Wrong about what exactly?

[Anonymous No.11029920]

>>11029911
The sheer hate on anglo stuff is as bad as the wankfest that anglo have with their writers. Sheakespeare was a great writer. It is questionable that he was the best

[Anonymous No.11029929]

>>11029917
>No one cosidered him a genius
>Well,the most prominent playwright of the time did
>It doesn't count!
just lol
shakespeare has been recognized a genius for centuries, and by the greatest literary tradition the world has ever known.

[Anonymous No.11029931]

>>11029411
You don't like any Bach? Try Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring (Hess arrangement) and Air on G string. Two very popular Bach pieces that are an easy listen. From there, try his Well Tempered Clavier and listen through and try and notice the themes he uses and how he uses them and intertwines multiple themes together to create seamless perfection. So yeah, just listen to more Bach. It'll click. As to why Mozart is easy listening - he was the master of melody and his music is so perfectly simplistic that it's not too complicated for anyone's ear but it baffles you at how he made such perfect music. That's the allure of Mozart. As to why you dislike Beethoven, I reckon you just haven't put enough time into him. Like Bach, but to a lesser extent. Listen to the 9th symphony, and treat it like a movie or a book. Devote your full attention to it and recall the themes used between the movements and how the culminate in the finale. It's an indescribable feeling when it all comes together. Also Beethoven has some very popular pieces I'm sure you'd like, try Pathetique 2nd movement (inspired by a Mozart piece!) or his 15th String Quartet, 3rd movement. Both very different pieces but both amazing.

I've just kind of rambled and not answered you at all but oh well, hope you get something out of it.

[Anonymous No.11029933]

>>11029916
Whatever you wish to say, monolingual bitch.

I am seriously tired of talking to monolingual Anglos. Don't you people feel any shame? There's nothing wrong against not knowing a foreign language, as long as you aren't a fool who keeps making judgments about how Shakespeare was the greatest of all when in reality you couldn't understand a single line of Virgil or Horace.

You pretty much just accepting the propagandistic opinion of the romantics, and nothing else. The only problem is that they were wrong about everything.

Goodbye, now. Eat shit.

[Anonymous No.11029939]

>>11029933
>There's nothing wrong against not knowing a foreign language
That would appear to be first hand knowledge, whiny continental

[Anonymous No.11029943]

>>11029919
'he was wrong' -picasso

[Anonymous No.11029949]

>>11029929
You idiot. What I said is Ben Johnson, who was VERY FAR from being the most prominent playwright for the time (monolinguals should shut up and stop making such wide judgments), would have written similar things about anyone else. Hyperbole was the rule when writing a poem about a friend. It is impossible to know whether Johnson really thought Shakespeare a genius or not.

Do you think Milton really thought all that much about his Lycidas? You don't.

[Anonymous No.11029956]

>>11029939
Why can't you differentiate typing mistakes from language mistakes? What is wrong with you?

It is obviously clear that, at first, I wanted to say 'I have nothing against people not knowing a foreign language', which is true, but then decided to say 'There's nothing wrong in not knowing a foreign language', and messed things up. I had to write it very fast, of course, because you are not worth too much of my time. No monolingual fool can be.

Goodbye. Now it's for good. Keep deluding your empty monolingual selves.

[Anonymous No.11029968]

>>11029943
"he was right"- picasso
Look how easy it is. Truly you are a master of rhetoric

>>11029910
Yeah while fountain is an important work, and I love a lot of contemporary art, it does bother me how much of it is focused on the ideas behind the pieces, as opposed to their actual execution. And I feel like fountain is kind of responsible for that.

[Anonymous No.11029972]

>>11029949
>who was VERY FAR from being the most prominent playwright for the time
>efore the English Civil War, the "Tribe of Ben" touted his importance, and during the Restoration Jonson's satirical comedies and his theory and practice of "humour characters" (which are often misunderstood; see William Congreve's letters for clarification) was extremely influential, providing the blueprint for many Restoration comedies
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sons_of_Ben_(literary_group)
I meant in his time and place, obviously. What else would I mean when discussing Shakespeare's contemporaries? Jesus you continentals are dull.
>Hyperbole was the rule when writing a poem about a friend
He places Shakespeare above all of his contemporaries, including men he knew personally.
>Do you think Milton really thought all that much about his Lycidas?
He may very well have.

[Anonymous No.11029977]

>>11029968
no picasso really said that

[Anonymous No.11029978]

>>11029956
continental cope