<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Art vs Books</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thelondonword.com/2010/01/art-vs-books/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.thelondonword.com/2010/01/art-vs-books/</link>
	<description>The Word on the Street</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 00:34:27 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: niamhist</title>
		<link>http://www.thelondonword.com/2010/01/art-vs-books/comment-page-1/#comment-12246</link>
		<dc:creator>niamhist</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 10 Jan 2010 01:10:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelondonword.com/?p=9804#comment-12246</guid>
		<description>If someone doesn&#039;t appreciate contemporary fiction, they are highly unlikely to read a particular book. Therefore they will not make any comment on that book. However, contemporary art is &quot;out in the open&quot; - on the streets, in galleries beside more traditional works, in commercial gallery windows, on the internet in its entirety... It is therefore more open to comment by individuals who do not appreciate contemporary art, as it is seen in its most complete form (as opposed to having a cover - and a gooey centre).

Yes contemporary art relies upon literary pontification (a la Hirst), but surely literature relies upon the creation of a visual image through the text - it is not just a bunch of words? It is the opposite of contemporary art. Contemporary art is a visual image which results in a literary explanation - contemporary fiction is a literary explanation which results in a visual image.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><!-- google_ad_section_start --><br />
If someone doesn&#8217;t appreciate contemporary fiction, they are highly unlikely to read a particular book. Therefore they will not make any comment on that book. However, contemporary art is &#8220;out in the open&#8221; &#8211; on the streets, in galleries beside more traditional works, in commercial gallery windows, on the internet in its entirety&#8230; It is therefore more open to comment by individuals who do not appreciate contemporary art, as it is seen in its most complete form (as opposed to having a cover &#8211; and a gooey centre).</p>
<p>Yes contemporary art relies upon literary pontification (a la Hirst), but surely literature relies upon the creation of a visual image through the text &#8211; it is not just a bunch of words? It is the opposite of contemporary art. Contemporary art is a visual image which results in a literary explanation &#8211; contemporary fiction is a literary explanation which results in a visual image.<!-- google_ad_section_end --></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Served from: www.thelondonword.com @ 2012-02-11 13:19:18 -->
