>"Having been brought so far by language, Walt [Whitman] came to realize he could go no further unless he ventured beyond language, which would be the death of poetry."
As I read this I imagine Whitman as someone growing up in the 21st century. Wanting to be beyond language, wouldn't he have been a visual artist directing little indie movies?
Lit vs Vis art thread?
I don't know about poetry, but I'd say that the main advantage prose literature has over visual art is the its psychological aspects. Its ability to give the reader an in-depth look into the mind of its characters. While film can achieve this as well, I don't think it can do it nearly as well as it's done in writing. And of course neither can painting or sculpting, or whatever achieve these psychological aspects.
what? are you high
>Lit vs Vis art
Literature is mostly a visual art
It is time to transcend the gassposting. DFW posting has had its day, it is time for another author with a three-letter acronym.
It is time for a new kind of shitposting, which will transcend both the visual and the semiotic. The time has come for unbridled MZD posting.
>having to click all fucking 9 street signs in the captcha
Astute observation about Whitman's seeming postmodernity. every era tries to claim him in academia. romantics, american realists, modernists and postmodernists all want to get their hands on Whitman. I personally situate him in the Gothic tradition a la Poe. check out his Memoranda During the War, Peter Coviello's edition—especially the notes. it's really dark stuff. almost a shame he's only remembered as a poet; his prose is really off the chain.
Well you got me confused then, aren't letters visual symbols? The war against slam poetry is mostly a war against the translation of the visual into the aural, or of poetry as a "spoken" thing...
Visual art is the phenomenal transcendental
Logic is the (pseudo)noumenal transcendental
Literature is the result of the proceeding dialectic