[Aiwendil]

Mr. Underhill:

In my opinion, “the arts” can be used as a catch-all phrase to mean all the different mediums that share the same fundamental feature of being a means for expressing creativity; “art” can be generalized to mean any creative work at all (the Kindergarten class’s art) or a work of surpassing achievement in any given medium. However, I think the things which distinguish Art from mere entertainment or outright drivel in any particular medium are fundamentally different.

I can see we're not going to agree on this in the near future, and I suppose we'll have to leave it at that. It just seems to me that the nature of art is not one thing for literature and another for music. Nature dictates purpose, and against purpose we measure the relative success of any piece of art. So if we define art as 'creative work' as you do, we must (in my opinion) say that the purpose of art is to be creative. Then in whatever medium we're in, we must devise ways of judging creativity. These could be different in different media - the manifestations of the purpose of art can be different, and will be different because the media are different. But the purpose remains the same. It's like science - there are many different branches, and each has its own system of operating, its own tools, its own jargon - but they all serve the same purpose, the pursuit of knowledge, because they're all science.

I don't expect you to agree with me on this, and if you'd like to drop this slightly off-topic argument, that's fine.

Any generalization that is universally applicable is necessarily so vague as to be essentially meaningless – for instance, to say that all Art (i.e., the highest achievements in any given medium) is “aesthetically pleasing” doesn’t tell us much.

I don't think it's essentially meaningless. It certainly does leave a lot of unanswered questions, as you rightly point out, but the fact that there are details to be worked out doesn't invalidate the original supposition. This is where (according to my theory) different media would differ - in what constitutes 'aesthetically pleasing'. But I maintain that there is such a thing as 'aesthetic pleasure'.

I don't expect you to agree with me on any of this, and if you'd like to drop this slightly off-topic argument, that's fine. Or if you're up for more debate, I'm okay with that as well.

Littlemanpoet:

Nor is emotional power the only requisite.

That's exactly my point.

When I look at the definition of art I use, 'that which is both necessary and sufficient,' I find that it is a distillation of the act of writing

This is an interesting definition, though I'm not sure that I understand it fully.

The thread became a bit of a support group for fantasy writers' frustrations, which helped crystallize for me "six levels of seriousness" in writing fantasy.

I must say (with all due respect to one who has probably had a lot more experience with writing that I've had) I disagree in general with your classifications. Firstly because, as I've indicated before on this thread, I think that art should be independent of the artist. I'd therefore say that it's not the intention with which art is produced that matters; it's the quality of the resulting art. I will grant that quality frequently proceeds from intention. But not always.

I may be misinterpreting your theory; I see you call these 'levels of seriousness' rather than levels of art or artistic quality. At the risk of putting words in your mouth then, I argue that 'personal satisfaction' is a reason for writing in no way inferior to 'evolution of consciousness'. Tolkien wrote the Silmarillion primarily out of a desire for 'personal satisfaction'.

self expression (personal aesthetic pleasure)

I don't think I agree that these two are synonymous. Producing a work for personal aesthetic pleasure seems to me to be synonymous with 'personal satisfaction'. Self-expression, on the other hand, instantly involves other people, since one must express oneself to someone.

good plot and character development

I don't see how this differs from previous levels; it seems rather to be a component of writing, regardless of purpose. Does a person who writes for personal satisfaction not strive for good plot and character development?

Despite my somewhat vituperous disagreement with you above, I thoroughly agree with your concluding analogy between fantasy and streams flowing together from two mountains. And I think you've perfectly defined this thread's initial criticism of modern fantasy.