# Were novels ever really a great art form? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [June 27, 2016, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-novels-ever-really-a-great-art-form/758516 "2016-06-27T13:52:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Balance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ccd318/32.png) [@Balance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Balance)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2016, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-novels-ever-really-a-great-art-form/758516/81 "2016-06-29T19:54:24Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > I’m being lazy but I’m going to guess; nobody in this thread has set out any even passably clear definition of what constitutes a “really great art form”. Am I right? Actually, I offered a brief stab at a definition for “great art”, argued that the form is irrelevant to greatness, and even tangentially defined “art” in [post #33](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19437459&postcount=33) of this thread. Said post also links to a more in-depth discussion on those topics. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2016, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-novels-ever-really-a-great-art-form/758516/82 "2016-06-29T23:04:35Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > I’m being lazy but I’m going to guess; nobody in this thread has set out any even passably clear definition of what constitutes a “really great art form”. Am I right? > > Without that, you are all just pissing in the wind. I know that this post could be seen as a threadshit but I really don’t get it. The question of “what is art?” and “what is great art” and similar seems to be discussed endlessly without anyone cluing in to the fundamental truth that these are questions without answer, since “art” has virtually no useful definition. You may have a point. But I think it’s virtually impossible to start with the premise that great art forms exist but to then argue that the novel isn’t one of them. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2016, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-novels-ever-really-a-great-art-form/758516/83 "2016-06-29T23:24:32Z")
> [@NAF1138](#): > > > [@Aeschines](#): > > > > I was talking about the present era, in which there is a division (in the minds of writers and readers) between serious/not serious that didn’t exist in the past. I am not actually saying that, in all cases, “serious” works could not be made into movies. I am saying that they don’t become popular enough for movie studios to smell money and turn them into movies. I agree with you that a lot of modern and post-modern novels are hard to turn into movies. > > Ok, fair. When did this happen in your opinion? Because Mockingbird was pretty recent in the grand sceme of things. So it had to have happened post 1960. Jumping ahead some years… all of the following were finalists for, or won, major literary fiction awards like the National Book Award or the Pulitzer Prize. The film adaptations were of varying worth–some acclaimed, some falling short of their sources–but they happened, and it seems they continue to happen. For whatever that’s thought to signify. _The World According to Garp_ (1978 novel, 1982 film) _Birdy_ (1978 novel, 1984 film) _War and Remembrance_ (1978 novel, 1988 miniseries) _Sophie’s Choice_ (1980 novel, 1982 film) _The Mosquito Coast_ (1981 novel, 1986 film) _The Color Purple_ (1982 novel, 1985 film) _Ironweed_ (1983 novel, 1987 film) _The Accidental Tourist_ (1985 novel, 1988 film) _Lonesome Dove_ (1985 novel, 1989 miniseries) _That Night_ (1987 novel, 1992 film) _Beloved_ (1987 novel, 1998 film) _Billy Bathgate_ (1989 novel, 1991 film) _The Mambo Kings Play Songs of Love_ (1989 novel, 1992 film) _The Joy Luck Club_ (1989 novel, 1993 film) _A Thousand Acres_ (1991 novel, 1997 film) _Bastard Out of Carolina_ (1992 novel, 1996 film) _All the Pretty Horses_ (1992 novel, 2000 film) _The Shipping News_ (1993 novel, 2001 film) _Cold Mountain_ (1997 novel, 2003 film) _American Pastoral_ (1997 novel, 2016 film forthcoming) _The Hours_ (1998 novel, 2002 film) _House of Sand and Fog_ (1999 novel, 2003 film) _Blonde_ (2000 novel, 2001 miniseries) _Empire Falls_ (2001 novel, 2005 miniseries) _The Road_ (2006 novel, 2009 film) _Olive Kitteridge_ (2008 novel, 2014 miniseries) _A Hologram for the King_ (2012 novel, 2016 film) _The Yellow Birds_ (2012 novel, 2016 film forthcoming) _Station Eleven_ (2014 novel, film in development) ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2016, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-novels-ever-really-a-great-art-form/758516/84 "2016-06-30T00:41:59Z")
> [@Balance](#): > > Actually, I offered a brief stab at a definition for “great art”, argued that the form is irrelevant to greatness, and even tangentially defined “art” in [post #33](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19437459&postcount=33) of this thread. Said post also links to a more in-depth discussion on those topics. Sure but there is no consensus. A substantial proportion of people would disagree with your definition. Maybe even a majority. ---
**Author:** ![Balance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ccd318/32.png) [@Balance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Balance)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2016, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-novels-ever-really-a-great-art-form/758516/85 "2016-06-30T01:08:22Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > Sure but there is no consensus. A substantial proportion of people would disagree with your definition. Maybe even a majority. I am aware of that, which is why I haven’t tried to engage with the cloud of vaguely malodorous fog that everyone else is arguing over. I was just pointing out that someone had, in fact, attempted to set out a definition. The fact that it sank without a ripple led me to conclude that there was no point in pursuing it further. I’m not an artist or a philosopher; I merely presented my personal viewpoint on the matter. Still, as long as I’m here, I may as make a last effort at clarification: 1. Art is that which is created for the purpose of evoking a specific emotional response from an audience. 2. The primary element in determining the quality of art is neither its popularity nor the skill in its execution, but in how well it evokes the intended response from the intended audience. 3. Great art is art which evokes the intended emotional response from audiences with substantially different cultural contexts from the intended audience. (Such as audiences of a different nationality, religion, or time period, for example.) 4. Corollary to (3), the greatness of a work of art is not dependent on its form, but on its ability to evoke a response from audiences. If someone wants to take that as a baseline, or to argue against it, be my guest. Just don’t expect anything profound from me on the subject. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2016, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-novels-ever-really-a-great-art-form/758516/86 "2016-06-30T01:38:31Z")
> [@Balance](#): > > I am aware of that, which is why I haven’t tried to engage with the cloud of vaguely malodorous fog that everyone else is arguing over. I was just pointing out that someone had, in fact, attempted to set out a definition. The fact that it sank without a ripple led me to conclude that there was no point in pursuing it further. I’m not an artist or a philosopher; I merely presented my personal viewpoint on the matter. > > Still, as long as I’m here, I may as make a last effort at clarification: > > 1. Art is that which is created for the purpose of evoking a specific emotional response from an audience. > > 2. The primary element in determining the quality of art is neither its popularity nor the skill in its execution, but in how well it evokes the intended response from the intended audience. > > 3. Great art is art which evokes the intended emotional response from audiences with substantially different cultural contexts from the intended audience. (Such as audiences of a different nationality, religion, or time period, for example.) > > 4. Corollary to (3), the greatness of a work of art is not dependent on its form, but on its ability to evoke a response from audiences. > > If someone wants to take that as a baseline, or to argue against it, be my guest. Just don’t expect anything profound from me on the subject. 🙂 Art doesn’t need to have an intended emotional response, and in fact most should not. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2016, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-novels-ever-really-a-great-art-form/758516/87 "2016-06-30T02:40:49Z")
Art should require effort. Just dripping paint drops onto a canvas requires no effort. (Corollary: If I can do it, it ain’t art.) I do agree with the definition that art should invoke an emotional reaction in the viewer/listener/reader. Without an emotional attachment, it’s just an industrial product, like toilet paper. The emotional connection from creator to audience is key to the definition. (The “emotion” can be remarkably rarefied. It doesn’t have to be a “primal” emotion. “Hm! That’s interesting!” is sometimes enough.) ---
**Author:** ![NAF1138](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naf1138/32/3245_2.png) [@NAF1138](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NAF1138)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2016, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-novels-ever-really-a-great-art-form/758516/88 "2016-06-30T02:47:28Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Art should require effort. Just dripping paint drops onto a canvas requires no effort. > > (Corollary: If I can do it, it ain’t art.) Gosh this really shouldn’t devolve into a conversation about “what is art”. That way lies madness. But, and if you find this question interesting don’t answer it here, start a new thread: Would you say that someone who produces a perfect reproduction of a great masterpiece is creating art? Why or why not? Also, don’t discount your ability to create art. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2016, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-novels-ever-really-a-great-art-form/758516/89 "2016-06-30T03:08:09Z")
> [@NAF1138](#): > > Gosh this really shouldn’t devolve into a conversation about “what is art”. That way lies madness. But, and if you find this question interesting don’t answer it here, start a new thread: Seriously? We have an OP that asks is X an example of Y, and we are agreed that there is no clear definition of Y, but you say that we _shouldn’t_ discuss what Y is? How the heck can you decide if X is an example of Y if you don’t know what Y is? If ever there was an example of a way down which lies madness, you have just proposed that route. It’s almost like you _want_ this discussion to be an amorphous muddle. ---
**Author:** ![NAF1138](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naf1138/32/3245_2.png) [@NAF1138](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NAF1138)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2016, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-novels-ever-really-a-great-art-form/758516/90 "2016-06-30T03:29:08Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > Seriously? We have an OP that asks is X an example of Y, and we are agreed that there is no clear definition of Y, but you say that we _shouldn’t_ discuss what Y is? How the heck can you decide if X is an example of Y if you don’t know what Y is? > > If ever there was an example of a way down which lies madness, you have just proposed that route. > > It’s almost like you _want_ this discussion to be an amorphous muddle. You think we are going to agree on a definition of what is great art and THEN discuss if novels fit? It’s not going to happen. You may be right that the OP can’t be answered as written without doing that. But we can reframe it to actually have a reasonable discussion. I made an attempt. I don’t know if the OP likes it. We could all also just walk away. Or we could just poke fun at the OP. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2016, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-novels-ever-really-a-great-art-form/758516/91 "2016-06-30T03:53:11Z")
> [@NAF1138](#): > > You think we are going to agree on a definition of what is great art and THEN discuss if novels fit? It’s not going to happen. You may be right that the OP can’t be answered as written without doing that. But we can reframe it to actually have a reasonable discussion. To respond to each of your sentences in order: No. Agreed. Yes. How? How can you have a reasonable discussion about whether X is Y when you don’t know what Y is? ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2016, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-novels-ever-really-a-great-art-form/758516/92 "2016-06-30T03:55:22Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Art should require effort. Just dripping paint drops onto a canvas requires no effort. > > (Corollary: If I can do it, it ain’t art.) > > I do agree with the definition that art should invoke an emotional reaction in the viewer/listener/reader. Without an emotional attachment, it’s just an industrial product, like toilet paper. The emotional connection from creator to audience is key to the definition. > > (The “emotion” can be remarkably rarefied. It doesn’t have to be a “primal” emotion. “Hm! That’s interesting!” is sometimes enough.) The poster said “intended emotional response”. It sounds totalitarian. Nobody who is making art would say that, unless it’s just any emotional response, not “intended” ---
**Author:** ![NAF1138](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naf1138/32/3245_2.png) [@NAF1138](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NAF1138)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2016, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-novels-ever-really-a-great-art-form/758516/93 "2016-06-30T04:07:51Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > To respond to each of your sentences in order: > > No. > Agreed. > Yes. > How? How can you have a reasonable discussion about whether X is Y when you don’t know what Y is? You are right. I don’t think that the OP intended to ask that (though what else was intended is hard to imagine) , but ultimately the question actually asked was an unanswerable one. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2016, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-novels-ever-really-a-great-art-form/758516/94 "2016-06-30T05:33:00Z")
> [@NAF1138](#): > > Gosh this really shouldn’t devolve into a conversation about “what is art”. That way lies madness. . . . **Princhester** asked if the term had been defined, thus inviting the issue. It is of value here at least to try. > [@drad\_dog](#): > > The poster said “intended emotional response”. It sounds totalitarian. Nobody who is making art would say that, unless it’s just any emotional response, not “intended” ??? Nobody? I can guarantee that some artists are deliberately trying to evoke an emotional response: horror writers! They’re trying to scare the skin off us! Seriously, I can’t see how you get “totalitarian” out of it. Romance writers want to evoke tender emotions. SF and Fantasy authors want to evoke the “sense of awe and wonder.” Comedic playwrights want to evoke laughter. They may not always succeed, but they’re giving it a good old try. ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2016, 6:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-novels-ever-really-a-great-art-form/758516/95 "2016-06-30T06:10:27Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > **Princhester** asked if the term had been defined, thus inviting the issue. It is of value here at least to try. > > ??? Nobody? I can guarantee that some artists are deliberately trying to evoke an emotional response: horror writers! They’re trying to scare the skin off us! > > Seriously, I can’t see how you get “totalitarian” out of it. Romance writers want to evoke tender emotions. SF and Fantasy authors want to evoke the “sense of awe and wonder.” Comedic playwrights want to evoke laughter. They may not always succeed, but they’re giving it a good old try. I would say that’s craft not Art, capital A. I was responding to a limiting definition of it not examples in some set of it. (Art is not limited to those writers you are citing at all, thank god) Art can’t be defined as someone trying to produce an emotion in another, unless you mean the “aesthetic emotion.” Do you think Warhol was trying to create a certain emotion in a person? What was it? ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2016, 6:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-novels-ever-really-a-great-art-form/758516/96 "2016-06-30T06:18:56Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > Correct! It’s a tricky question. I would say some forms are art by nature: they can be good art or bad art, but they are always art. Some form are entertainment by nature: a Punch and Judy show is just entertainment, though we can admire the performance when it’s skillful. And some forms are on the line between art and entertainment. > > Thanks. This is helpful in that it further circumscribes the domain in which novels were, in fact, art. > > Educate me on what you mean by “underlying symmetry.” > > I would ask you this: What is the last novel to have had cultural impact and still be considered a work of art today? _To Kill a Mockingbird_ (1960) comes to mind, though I’m not religiously wed to that. I would call that a decline, or a significant symptom thereof. Seems an odd way to define art. In my opinion art is human activity that isn’t strictly practical. Parts of form that aren’t essential for function are artistic. Now whether or not art is great or base, entertaining or boring, is strictly subjective in my opinion as well. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2016, 6:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-novels-ever-really-a-great-art-form/758516/97 "2016-06-30T06:23:22Z")
> [@drad\_dog](#): > > . . . Do you think Warhol was trying to create a certain emotion in a person? What was it? With the soup cans, I think it was laughter. More seriously, I think “appreciation of beauty” is a valid emotional communication. When we see, say, a lovely landscape painting, it gives us a kind of contentment. ---
**Author:** ![WordMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e8c25b/32.png) [@WordMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WordMan)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2016, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-novels-ever-really-a-great-art-form/758516/98 "2016-06-30T12:53:59Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > With the soup cans, I think it was laughter. > > More seriously, I think “appreciation of beauty” is a valid emotional communication. When we see, say, a lovely landscape painting, it gives us a kind of contentment. Warhol took everyday things and wrapped them in the iconography of Great Art. That juxtaposition sets up a wonderful tension between amusement and reflection on our popular culture and its place in our lives. He knew what he was doing. It feels like the OP is looking to explore the status of the Novel as a vital art form. I haven’t read the linked essay by Will Self, but in some ways, the novel has been a tippie-top art form that appears to be going through a “decline in popular relevance.” I suppose the question might be: if the novel can go from the Harvard of art forms to the “Solid State College” of art forms ;), was it ever really a great art form to begin with? Now, there are _tons_ of definitions required to have a decent conversation about that, but it is an interesting discussion. I do believe that novels have become less relevant as a byproduct of the cheap accessibility to cameras, bandwidth/shareability, and the development of visual communication platforms from Instagram to Netflix. Novels are harder to do, and require a form of engagement that is a big investment of time and focus. I do believe that novels are a Truly Great art form. Current popular relevance is not a top criteria I think should be used in appreciating an art form. I also believe that the stream of Great Novels will continue. Some will be popular within their specific audiences. Some will, occasionally, crossover in to the cultural mainstream. The Harry Potter and 50 Shades phenomena both point to how novels can crossover. There have been other books over the past few years that have been “media events” to varying degrees. So it goes and will continue. ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2016, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-novels-ever-really-a-great-art-form/758516/99 "2016-06-30T13:10:24Z")
I do not believe that the medium makes a given creation great or pedestrian. Is sculpture a “Great Art Form?” Great art is created in sculpture, but also a great deal more pointless crap. Same with the novel. Great art can be created in any medium. ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2016, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-novels-ever-really-a-great-art-form/758516/100 "2016-06-30T16:42:53Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > With the soup cans, I think it was laughter. > > More seriously, I think “appreciation of beauty” is a valid emotional communication. When we see, say, a lovely landscape painting, it gives us a kind of contentment. I agree that aesthetic awe is in play, but that is the only emotion you can pin down. There are many ugly works of art, and the intentions are not reducable to anything except “This is my art”. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-novels-ever-really-a-great-art-form/758516.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-novels-ever-really-a-great-art-form/758516.md?page=6)