[qiskit]

> IME great literature has to connect at an emotional level.

No. It's has to be more than that. Otherwise, every formulaic romance novel would qualify as great literature. Great literature has to have it all, but most importantly, it has to advance language/thought/culture. It's what separates the bible, shakespeare's works, etc from dostoevksy. Dostoevksy's works are entertaining. But they certainly aren't great.

[copperx]

> Dostoevksy's works are entertaining. But they certainly aren't great.

You can't just dismiss Dostoevsky like that. Can you elaborate why his works don't qualify as great literature?

[darkerside]

Ridiculous to make an unsatisfied statement like that

[sammalloy]

> > IME great literature has to connect at an emotional level.

> No. It's has to be more than that

But, it’s not. Great literature, great music, and great art connects at an emotional level, which doesn’t involve logic, reason, or thought. Most of what we consider great art has this quality and it does it effortlessly and without trying.

A formulaic romance novel isn’t great because it’s gratuitous, sentimental, cliche, and panders to our emotional wants and needs; great art meets us where we are now in life, and doesn’t try to pressure or influence us towards one side or another. That’s the difference.

It’s like being surprised or frightened. You have no control over your reaction because it’s hitting you at the fundamental core of your humanity. It’s a feeling, an experience, and ultimately an emotional response on a very primitive level of cognition.

For me, it’s like Picard pulling out his flute and playing the song of his people at the end of "The Inner Light". This isn’t an exercise in thinking, it’s all about feeling. And that’s why that episode is widely considered the greatest.

[Morgawr]

> But, it’s not. Great literature, great music, and great art connects at an emotional level, which doesn’t involve logic, reason, or thought.

The comment you're replying to is not discrediting that. They are just saying that it needs to be more than *just* creating an emotional connection.

[sammalloy]

> The comment you're replying to is not discrediting that. They are just saying that it needs to be more than just creating an emotional connection.

Specifically, the OP is saying that great art "has to advance language/thought/culture" in addition to having an emotional connection. The problem is that this is very much a rear-view mirror perspective.

Great art doesn’t have to do much of anything except connect the audience with the human experience and condition. And that’s fundamentally an emotional connection.

Advancing language, art, and culture is a meta-perspective about the significance of an artwork that comes much later. It is not a requirement of great art.

Great art is timeless because it connects us emotionally to the human condition—an unchanging experience through the centuries that reaches out beyond time and place.

And yet, while it is certainly true that some great art does "advance" aspects of our culture—Shakespeare is widely known to have contributed an enormous amount to the English language, for example—the greatness of Shakespeare doesn’t rest on this laurel, but rather its unchanging, persistent, emotional connection to the human condition across time.

In other words, great art taps into the timeless, eternal space of our shared lives that is always true, and that reaches out and touches upon everyone, everywhere, in every time. It is this universal appeal that makes it great.

The fact is, the human experience hasn’t really changed that much in the last 10,000 years, and great art taps into this unchanging set of idealized forms.

[qiskit]

> The problem is that this is very much a rear-view mirror perspective.

But analyzing art is a rear-view mirror perspective. History judges what is great art. Not the present audience.

You ramble about the same thing over and over again - human condition. Sure. That's a part of it. Silly pop music, formulaic romance novels, etc all have that. But what separates actual great art from entertaining art is it's affect on language/culture/thought/etc.

Whether marvel movies will be considered great art has nothing to do with "human condition" or how it emotionally affected the audience today. It'll be judged in time by its affect on language/culture/thought/etc. Any silly drone can create art that touches on the human condition. That's the easy part.

Shakespeare's hamlet, romeo and juliet, etc aren't considered great art because it "moves" you.

> and great art taps into this unchanging set of idealized forms.

No. Practically every art does.

[JohnJamesRambo]

> Dostoevksy's works are entertaining. But they certainly aren't great.

Enough HN for today. It’s just insufferable nonsense far too often these days. I resisted responding to the other guy in this thread that called Freud and Jung quacks but wants to read 10 million 2000 year old Sanskrit meditation texts for insights.

[6rccn]

Notes from Underground absolutely did influence 20th century existentialism.