Can literature be considered artwork or a form of it..why?

Question

i developing a thesis around this topic..and im looking for other opinions/suggestions etc..to help direct me

Answer 1

It can and is. But this hinges a lot on your definition of 'art'.

Some people restrict art to certain mediums only... but these tend to be the same people who refuse to accept some of the more outside form of art (such as performance art, junk art, and other stuff).

I think of art as an attempt at emotional communication. A science textbook is not usually art, but a book of literature usually is.

Answer 2

In my opinion anything that gets the creative juices flowing can and should be considered artwork. Look at it this way...How many times have you read something that made you feel as if you were actually part of what you were reading? To me that is artwork. Food dishes have been considered artwork so why not writing?

Answer 3

Yes, of course it can. Art, at least by my definition, is any creative work designed to evoke thought or a reaction. And literature surely falls into that category, as does music, dance, theater, and painting, to name just a few. It's all about expression.

Answer 4

Certainly! In literature the art of language. The very best example is Shakespeare.

Answer 5

When I think of art I think of creativity and creativity can come in infinite forms so, yes I definitely think literature can fit in that category.

Answer 6

Yes. To me, art is something that is of relation to beauty and I find literature beautiful.

Answer 7

Ayn Rand called art "selective recreation of reality." Meaning, you chose what to put in, what to leave out, and how to describe what you mean--in music, dance, painting, vocalizing, and yes, literature. There are aesthetic "schools" of "selective recreation of reality." Rand's was called Romanticism and she shared it with Victor Hugo (she even got to write an introduction to an anniversary edition of one of his books); with Rachmaninoff; and dozens of others.

Answer 8

"It was Aristotle who said that fiction is of greater philosophical importance than history, because history represents things only as they are, while fiction represents them "as they might be and ought to be." "