The Death of the Author

Post Reply
User avatar
BleuPanda
Higher Ground
Posts: 4717
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 1:20 am
Location: Urbana, IL

The Death of the Author

Post by BleuPanda »

I was wondering what AMF thinks of this concept. If you don't know what it is, TV Tropes has a fair summary:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/M ... fTheAuthor

To me, this has always simplified art, and has been used as an excuse for shallow readings. While the reading of the audience is important, certain elements of the author's background are too important to ignore. For example, if I were to write Elie Wiesel's Night today, the exact same story but simply from me and not him, it would have little meaning. What was once a story recounting a man's own experience would become something almost exploitative. The author of the work changes the meaning of the work.

The same could be said about "The Blacker the Berry"; it is a song that relies on a lot of stereotypes both about black culture and particularly those living in poor neighborhoods, that if it came from anyone but a black man who grew up in that sort of place, it would be offensive. Instead, it's a work that question the meaning behind those statements.

I think David Bowie's Blackstar is similar; my perception of it completely changed between my first listen from before his death and my second that took place after. It transformed from a bleak record to a statement on death from a dying man; that change made it all the more 'authentic.'

I think the source of a work is one of the most important elements; to me, art is a statement, and statements don't come out of a void. Viewing art as if it exists in a vacuum ignores the social context that informed its creation. Though intent and the actual message delivered may vary, why those two vary is something important to consider.

I mean, you can interpret A Modest Proposal as a serious suggestion, but both who and where it's coming from should shed some light on the fact it's satire. To defend both interpretations as having the same value suggests no art has ever actually made an intended statement. While most works leave certain elements up for interpretation (as any good work should), there's a certain limit before that interpretation has no solid substance.

I think an interesting case to explore this might be the film Rashomon. Perhaps there is some statement on World War II within this film, but what if you read the basic premise as such? But then consider the existence of the short story it is based on, written long before World War II yet essentially covering the same narrative. Any element taken directly from this short story couldn't possibly be a commentary on a war that didn't happen. You would be able to argue Kurosawa's choice to adapt this specific story at this time is its own form of commentary, but it would be impossible for the plot elements to be.

On a similar note, I'm certain there are dozens of films that people have talked about being influenced by another, but then the director has outright stated they never saw the film they were supposedly influenced by (I know I've read such statements before, but my memory is fading on both which specific movies and where to find the source). Unless you believe the artist is lying, that interpretation is simply not possible.

To me, part of a cohesive work is its ability to make its main statement clear by guiding the audience to its message. To ignore certain cues (such as the increasingly explicit Nazi imagery in Starship Troopers) and then make a statement about the work contradicted by those elements means either a) the person making this statement has overlooked this detail or b) the author did a really bad job framing the elements of his work.

But, yeah. Any thoughts on this? I feel like this is a theory accepted at face value, but there's something it's lacking. Where it's obviously wrong to state 'this author was making a statement on ~some ideology~' when there's no proof, a work without some form of origin lacks relevance. Perhaps it's not just the author that needs to be considered, but the society of its time as well. But throwing out the author completely, to me, is throwing out the purpose in why people create art in the first place.
User avatar
BleuPanda
Higher Ground
Posts: 4717
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 1:20 am
Location: Urbana, IL

Re: The Death of the Author

Post by BleuPanda »

Another common element of this (which might be why I as a gay man have so many issues with this idea) is the concept of the 'gal pal,' which is a rather common thing where (typically straight) people interpret the relationship between two women as purely platonic, even if there are implicit (and sometimes even explicit for the exceedingly dense) moments showing there is more to the relationship. Part of the issue here is that this also happens in real life; if you confuse a lesbian couple for sisters in real life, you're simply incorrect. Your interpretation doesn't change their status. There's usually a gray area in fiction, but there's eventually a certain point where denying that the relationship exists is going contrary to what is being presented.

And of course it works the opposite way, too, with queer people interpreting likely platonic relationships as homoromantic, though this is more out of desire and a lack of representation than an earnestly held belief.
Nick
Running Up That Hill
Posts: 3115
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 9:28 pm
Location: New York State

Re: The Death of the Author

Post by Nick »

I've thought long and hard about this idea for a while now, and I still haven't reached a solid conclusion. Nevertheless, I'm willing to share my thoughts.

I'm pretty sympathetic to the death of the author. First off, it's my belief that all value judgments in art are entirely subjective. There's no mathematical proof or scientific formula that can determine the "goodness" of a work of art, there's no instrument that can measure it and there's no way we can examine it under a microscope. Saying "X film is better than Y film" is functionally equivalent to saying "I like X film better than I like Y film". With that in mind, I'm going to extend that same subjectivity to interpretations. If you and ten of your friends were to look at a cloud, or at an ink blot, you would probably end up seeing ten different things. Neither of you are right or wrong, as there is no such proof or formula that can determine whose interpretation is most correct. Ultimately, each interpretation is subjective.

But you might counter my argument by claiming that interpreting a work of art falls under a different set of rules. You might claim that the absence of an artist in the clouds or ink blot example proves that there is no "definitive" interpretation to begin with. Only when an artist is involved is there a "right" or "wrong" interpretation. Again, I would disagree. I believe there is no objectively right or wrong interpretation, only interpretations that can be better supported than others. I fully believe that one could make a compelling argument for a seemingly ludicrous interpretation "better" than an un-compelling argument for a seemingly sane interpretation. When it comes to an author, the same rules apply, and it's all too easy to think of a host of reductio ad absurdums to show this. If Herman Melville truly believed his novel Moby-Dick was a simple story about a man killing a whale, and offered up little in the way of compelling argument to justify his claim, would that make his interpretation the "definitive" one? If David Bowie knew he was dying but in no way meant for "Blackstar" to be about his death, or death at all, would that invalidate our ability to claim that's how we interpret the album?

Ray Bradbury famously claimed that his novel "Fahrenheit 451" wasn't about censorship at all, even though there's an abundance of material in the novel that suggests that censorship is a major theme. Is everyone who views the novel to be an anti-censorship work wrong? Furthermore, what do we do about a work of art with multiple artists? If each of these artists has a different interpretation of the artwork, is there no "definitive" interpretation? Or all they all equally right, even if they contradict?

Ultimately we should view art with some level of context. It would be impossible to interpret a novel if we lacked contextual information as basic as an understanding of the language that the novel before us is written in. That would be a sort of "first order" of context, and it's a level so basic that most of us don't even think about it. Moving up the contextual chain we'd end up with something like "basic historical context". One could probably make a decent interpretation of the painting "Washington Crossing the Delaware" without referencing who Washington was or why he was crossing the Delaware, but it'd be pretty damn hard to. And then, moving way, way up the contextual chain we'd reach a level where we were examining the artist's every move, every possible motivation for creating the work of art, only viewing the artwork from the perspective of the artist, and not from an audience.

It's hard to say where the line should fall between an acceptable level of context and an unacceptable level of context, but I'm inclined to believe that treating the artist's motivation as gospel falls on the unacceptable side, especially considering that the artist isn't a machine with a clear, unwavering idea about where the work of art originated from. Almost every work of art has some element that lacks total clarity, as the element may have come from the subconscious of the artist, or from a dream, or from random whim, or from accident. Defending an interpretation of a work of art may not be the same as defending your interpretation of a cloud or ink blot. But there's a lot more room than the narrow view that the artist's interpretation is gospel would suggest.
User avatar
BleuPanda
Higher Ground
Posts: 4717
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 1:20 am
Location: Urbana, IL

Re: The Death of the Author

Post by BleuPanda »

Indeed. In regard to the censorship from Fahrenheit 451; this is where I think the idea of intent vs. actual message is intriguing on an artistic level. What if Bradbury actually did write the book without even considering that topic? What is it a byproduct of to allow a man to make such a powerful statement without apparent purpose? I don't want to decide what is right vs. wrong (except where the interpretation comes from a lack of attention), but rather how these two interpretations came to be so dominant without the author's input.

And, naturally, many works due to their context say a lot more about their surroundings than the author could ever intend. The Birth of a Nation is a fine example, as the director believed he was speaking the truth when most of us can recognize the very obvious issues. I think we have to look at it from both angles; what did the author intend, what does the work end up saying, and how do we bridge the gap between the two? I guess I view it as a language; the author says one thing, we might read another. Where does this distance between speaker and listener come from. In some cases, the listener isn't listening close enough and hopefully tries again. In other cases, the speaker lacks self-awareness that we can infer through the way he speaks. Or perhaps the speaker is actually lacking a cohesive statement. Perhaps, even, the speaker isn't telling us a story but asking us a question. But I think how this interaction occurs is an important step in understanding an individual work. If the author says 'X', and all these images clearly mean 'Y,' how did Y supplant X?

I don't think the author is ever a perfect source, but I do think looking at what they say can be a key step in processing your own interpretation.
User avatar
whuntva
Keep On Movin'
Posts: 1838
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 11:46 pm

Re: The Death of the Author

Post by whuntva »

This concept was something I brought up in high school English. I really got into some hot debates over it.

Have you seen F for Fake, Orson Welles' final film as director? That film gave me something to chew on regarding this idea.

Orson makes a fake documentary about an art forger, and goes to a Gothic cathedral whose architect is unknown. The point Orson makes here is "wasn't the forger just as valid as Picasso if he followed the same points on the painting exactly."?

I think more to Focault's idea of the author being a creation of ideas by the artist and consumer. The author himself becomes the work of art for the time, and is a sort of avatar for the creator. Like it or not, this is how we all view art.

Think of it this way: Who built Stonehenge? Who wrote the tune of "Swing Low, Sweet Chariot"? Who made the first advice animal? Nobody knows. And yet, we still imprint onto those works without knowing anything about the author. They stand out on their own.

Nonetheless, the artist can leave such an indelible imprint on his work, the two become intertwined. I thought back to the Blackstar example, and I totally see where you are coming from. Bowie made this a personal record, and it is nigh impossible--for me anyway--to separate artist from work in that case.

In the end, art is a vessel. It's communication. it was made not for the artist, but for us the consumer. And what is the artist but a middleman in transferring those ideas?

So while the author is important, he is also a construct of ideas. People often throw this as a trump card to dismiss criticism, but I feel any interpretation can be valid, and it is a blend of all views that shape the interpreter, and the interpreter's idea is the most important, whether or not the author is part of it.
" Ah, yes! Our meager restitution"
User avatar
BleuPanda
Higher Ground
Posts: 4717
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 1:20 am
Location: Urbana, IL

Re: The Death of the Author

Post by BleuPanda »

It's something that changes depending on the work, which I think is another reason I have issue with the theory. We don't need to know who wrote "Swing Low, Sweet Chariot," but at the same time, certain works like My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy are in context of its creator. Additionally, we still make guesses at the 'who' behind these anonymous works, and even if we don't know the exact information, our approximations guide our interpretation. After all, much of the appeal of Stonehenge is our contemplation about the purpose behind its existence, which is a way of questioning the purpose in its construction.

Another thing I want to consider: there's currently a movement in young adult literature to promote books written by minority authors about minority characters. This is in response to both the fact that around 90% of novel protagonists are white, and quite a few of the non-white characters are still written by white people. If a work exists outside of its author, why would it matter to so many people of color that they aren't being represented on the author side in regards to what they read?

And, do all artists create works for the benefit of an audience? I know large parts of my own writing are a method for me to question and inspect myself as a person; if others can draw their own meaning from that, I'd be happy, but to say those elements are created as a form of communication are simplifying the creative process. Perhaps this is where the needs of an interpretive audience come in, to add alternative perspectives on a complex issue.

I guess I'm in part having an existential crisis of 'why do I write?' And I think part of it is that my basic identity should be an influence on how my work is read; most people have no idea what a homoromantic asexual is, and even less actually know someone who identifies as such. The fact that my stories tackle that subject from the perspective of someone who has lived that subject should factor into interpretations, if only to at least frame the legitimacy of the experience.
User avatar
BleuPanda
Higher Ground
Posts: 4717
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 1:20 am
Location: Urbana, IL

Re: The Death of the Author

Post by BleuPanda »

And, from that point, what is the value of an autobiography from the point of view that its author is irrelevant?
Nick
Running Up That Hill
Posts: 3115
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 9:28 pm
Location: New York State

Re: The Death of the Author

Post by Nick »

I believe that the onus of deciding whether or not the artist's life should serve as context on which to interpret the artwork is entirely dependent on the interpreter. If the interpreter can frame a convincing argument without it, then so be it. If it's a necessary context to frame a convincing argument, then so be it. Ultimately it's not about the interpretation, but on how strong the interpretation is. What I strongly object to is the notion that we NEED to use the life of the artist as context for an interpretation. I think whuntva's point about anonymous artists is great in this regard. If we needed that context so badly, how could we ever hope to interpret anonymous art? There's a whole host of other contexts we could frame a work of art around other than the artist's life or artist's interpretation.
User avatar
Maschine_Man
Unquestionable Presence
Posts: 642
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 4:42 am

Re: The Death of the Author

Post by Maschine_Man »

Nick's just gone and hammered every head of every nail that I could ever really think to hit! Fantastic post.

I'm very much on the side of the author being alive, but that's just the way I like think about things. I believe Art is a reflection of the time and place it was created; and I'm most impressed with Art and Artists' that put this at the forefront of their work. I think the more we understand about the base context in which a work of Art was created, the easier it is for us to empathize with people who lived the context and what the Artwork was trying to say.

This is what I like to think about when I'm reading/viewing an Artwork, mainly because it is one of the only ways in which I can create a connection with people from the past. Obviously this is more difficult to do with recent work and even more so with music, considering both authors and audience are still alive.

I don't think death of the author is necessarily a bad stance to take, but it does frustrate me when there is absolutely no consideration for them at all. While this happens rarely, it can be exacerbated by the internet; hashtag trends can suppress the chance for works to have an alternate meaning.
User avatar
BleuPanda
Higher Ground
Posts: 4717
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 1:20 am
Location: Urbana, IL

Re: The Death of the Author

Post by BleuPanda »

And I just want to make it clear, I'm not trying to say you must interpret work through the eye of the artist; all I'm doing is trying to refute the claims of the theory, which is that works exist outside of their author. A well-written story would do such a good job expressing the author's point you wouldn't need their input, and a lot of what we know about some authors is purely through their art. I just think it's an argument that swings too far to one extreme, when all it really needed to do was express the idea that works can have exterior interpretations that are equally valid; but who can resist making such a big statement?
User avatar
babydoll
Movin' On Up
Posts: 970
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2016 7:07 pm

Re: The Death of the Author

Post by babydoll »

Interestingly enough BleuPanda and Nick brought up the two books I hated the most from high school curricular reading. Why? The authors behind it. I thought Ray Bradbury came off as too off-ish, while Elie Wiesel claimed to be for humanity yet hates the Gentiles for a time in the book. Granted, it's been a while since I read both of them so my reasons can't be backed up by quotes.

The author has been proven to subject his personal view into his work of art. Look at Jean-Luc Godard - the movies are his and only his. It's solely his interpretation of society's material necessities. They wouldn't work with Francois Truffaut or Jean Renoir. They're his. Yes, the audience can interpret them anyway they like, and they do, but Godard's interpretation is important.

Even though Harry Warren and Mack Gordon wrote At Last, Etta James' vocal interpretation is what gives her recording life, not the lyrics. Even though the songwriters might have meant the lyrics, Etta herself alone packs it with such emotion the lyrics come to life. Hell, people sing the song at weddings and base it off Etta's interpretation.
User avatar
luney6
Movin' On Up
Posts: 868
Joined: Sat May 31, 2014 8:50 pm

Re: The Death of the Author

Post by luney6 »

INteresting discussion, and I very much agree with some of the points brought up.

I think that this theory is absolutely applicable. In the end, nothing exists but the art. Time will generally see to it that everything else washes away. Tagging interpretations and the artist's own personal experiences externally is lazy artistry because it shows that the artist is incapable of conveying himself/herself through the art. Context can be conveyed through the art itself. Simply because someone is not from the ghetto, doesn't mean that they cannot formulate their own interpretation of life in a ghetto, through logic and research, and their interpretation may even be more accurate than those who have actually lived in the ghetto, if the person in the ghetto is unable to organize his thoughts as well.

In the end, the artist must be capable of directing his audience's mind. I think if we all watch Annie Hall together, with the same attention, scene for scene we will more or less come up with similar interpretations. This is something I've even tried for a few movies. Hence my claim that art is objective.

Secondly, I don't think that art ever has a singular 'purpose' or interpretation. It may have over-arching themes, but I think it can be as diverse as an intellectual conversation can be, while touching upon topics that are universal. What matters the most is how well the moments string together.

I think that there is definitely a way to measure the merit of art, and that stems from the intellectual effort put in by the
artist. I mean surely, as PlasticRam said, it is possible to see that The Beatles were a better band than Nickelback are, and for this simple reason. And this objectivity can be applied to bands that are closer in their efforts as well.

Another fault I see with the subjectivity theory is that, when one looks to derive pleasure of visceral satisfaction from a work, the art will eventually wear out. A catchy pop tune that connects with you will eventually lose its meaning, while a thick introspective piece will provide continuous satisfaction as you listen to it more, and find more intricacies in it. Similarly for movies and for films.

I think that the main difference between our approaches is that you interpret art as pleasure, or satisfaction to be derived, while I look at it as a form of communication, that moves one to learn more about the universe and the human mind. Sort of like philosophy, or thought with medium.

In fact, I feel like a good example of this is the book Siddhartha, by Hermann Hesse. It takes familiar eastern philosophies and ideas, and seeks to explain them. It doesn't matter what the subject of the book is, but what's more important is how it's conveyed.
Maschine_Man wrote: I'm very much on the side of the author being alive, but that's just the way I like think about things. I believe Art is a reflection of the time and place it was created; and I'm most impressed with Art and Artists' that put this at the forefront of their work. I think the more we understand about the base context in which a work of Art was created, the easier it is for us to empathize with people who lived the context and what the Artwork was trying to say. [1]
I don't think it matters what the artist conveys, but what I feel is more important is how the artist conveys. The information that the artist conveys seems irrelevant. In the forefront should be how the artist uses this information.
Nick wrote:I believe that the onus of deciding whether or not the artist's life should serve as context on which to interpret the artwork is entirely dependent on the interpreter. If the interpreter can frame a convincing argument without it, then so be it. If it's a necessary context to frame a convincing argument, then so be it. Ultimately it's not about the interpretation, but on how strong the interpretation is. What I strongly object to is the notion that we NEED to use the life of the artist as context for an interpretation. I think whuntva's point about anonymous artists is great in this regard. If we needed that context so badly, how could we ever hope to interpret anonymous art? There's a whole host of other contexts we could frame a work of art around other than the artist's life or artist's interpretation.
And I completely agree with this post.

I'm a little late to the party, but I really hope to hear your responses to some of the things I've said.
Last edited by luney6 on Mon Mar 28, 2016 3:42 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"God grant me the serenity to accept things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference."
User avatar
Maschine_Man
Unquestionable Presence
Posts: 642
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 4:42 am

Re: The Death of the Author

Post by Maschine_Man »

luney6 wrote: In the end, the artist must be capable of directing his audience's mind. I think if we all watch Annie Hall together, with the same attention, scene for scene we will more or less come up with similar interpretations. This is something I've even tried for a few movies. Hence my claim that art is objective.
Does "we" include Chinese fishermen and Tongan weavers? I think they will have great difficultly interpreting it, even with the aid of subtitles. I agree with your point, say if we were only talking about AMF, but to be fair we aren't exactly a diverse sample of the 7 billion inhabitants on earth.
luney6 wrote: Secondly, I don't think that art ever has a singular 'purpose' or interpretation. It may have over-arching themes, but I think it can be as diverse as an intellectual conversation can be, while touching upon topics that are universal. What matters the most is how well the moments string together.
I do agree with this though. But it kind of lends more to the idea that art is subject, no? If art can have multiple interpretations, some people are going to interpret it in a positive way and others in a negative way. Therefore even if they think they have been objective about the work, they have still had to interpret the work with their subjective understanding of the world.
luney6 wrote: Another fault I see with the subjectivity theory is that, when one looks to derive pleasure of visceral satisfaction from a work, the art will eventually wear out. A catchy pop tune that connects with you will eventually lose its meaning, while a thick introspective piece will provide continuous satisfaction as you listen to it more, and find more intricacies in it. Similarly for movies and for films.
I also might agree with this if it was the AMF forum, but my gut tells me this isn't what happens with most people. I mostly disagree with "will eventually lose its meaning". While a visceral enjoyment of a CPT (catchy pop tune) may decrease over time, their ability to be everywhere for a period of time allows them one major benefit. This is that many people create memories and associations with the CPT, especially if they are in their late teens/early twenties (aka going out). This allows the song to have more meaning than the author ever intended, which seems to align more with your thoughts.

I'm not saying this doesn't happen, it might even happen more than I think it does. I just don't buy a majority of people stop listening to the CPT of their youth. And from what I understand, most people stop listening to new music in their early 30s.
Nick
Running Up That Hill
Posts: 3115
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 9:28 pm
Location: New York State

Re: The Death of the Author

Post by Nick »

luney6 wrote: I think that there is definitely a way to measure the merit of art, and that stems from the intellectual effort put in by the
artist. I mean surely, as PlasticRam said, it is possible to see that The Beatles were a better band than Nickelback are, and for this simple reason. And this objectivity can be applied to bands that are closer in their efforts as well.

Another fault I see with the subjectivity theory is that, when one looks to derive pleasure of visceral satisfaction from a work, the art will eventually wear out. A catchy pop tune that connects with you will eventually lose its meaning, while a thick introspective piece will provide continuous satisfaction as you listen to it more, and find more intricacies in it. Similarly for movies and for films.
I take two issues with this idea.

First, I take issue with the idea that we can measure how intellectual a work of art, or an artist is, in any quantifiable way. While it may be seemingly obvious to you and I that The Beatles are a more "intellectual" band than Nickelback, I would not say that this means that The Beatles are objectively a more intellectual band than Nickelback, as how are we defining intellectual? If I want to know how tall I am, I'll take a ruler and measure myself. If I want to see how much a certain book weighs, I'll place it on a scale. If I want to tell how hot it is outside, I'll use a thermometer. If I want to determine how intellectual a work of art is...I'll...?

When it comes to objective measurements, be it distance, duration, weight, temperature, atmospheric pressure, luminosity, mass, etc. we have an easy way to record the measurement in a numeric term. We have no such way to do so when it comes to the intelligence of a work of art. If intelligence is objective, then why does it get a pass from this when every other objective measurement follows such stringent rules? There are no scientists sitting around in lab coats going "ahhh yes, "She Loves You" clearly measures a 75 on the intelligence scale, while "How You Remind Me" sits at a paltry 13". Again, you may go, "ahhh Nick, but you're just being difficult. Isn't is obvious that The Beatles are more intelligent, objectively speaking, than Nickelback??"

To which I would respond that it really isn't all that obvious, objectively speaking. It may seem more obvious to me that (and I'm just throwing names out here, no need to read too far into this) George Clooney is more attractive than Steve Buscemi. But I'm not going to say that Clooney is "objectively" better looking. If my friend honestly finds Buscemi more attractive, I'm not going to call him/her objectively wrong. In the same way this is how intelligence works with regard to a work of art. If my friend honestly believes that the music of Nickelback is more intelligent than that of The Beatles, well then my friend has awful taste in music, but I wouldn't say they're objectively wrong. And until I see a way to measure intelligence in music, then I'll continue saying they're not objectively wrong.

Second off, even if we can measure how intellectual a work of art is, I see no reason why a work of art's "intelligence" should be the determining factor of how objectively "good" or "bad" it is. What if intelligence just isn't what I value in music? What if I only value lyrical content? Or what if I only value how danceable the song is? Or the singer's vocal range? Or what if I only value songs that use a xylophone? I just can't see why "intelligence" should be the end all to quality. Several of the most acclaimed music artists have made some pretty "dumb" music. Daft Punk have made "dumb" music. The Ramones have made "dumb" music. Oasis have made "dumb" music. And there's a lot of examples of "dumb" music that I get more out of than I do "smart" music, and I'm sure that applies to all of us. You make a claim that "smart" music lasts longer than "dumb" music, but the continued popularity of those three aforementioned artists proves that wrong. The most popular music of the 1980s in 2016 are artists like Michael Jackson and Madonna, artists I like a lot, but certainly artists that made "dumb" music, at least compared to some of the most avant-garde, forward thinking acts of that era. Clearly there's something more than how "intelligent" a song is that allows us to enjoy it, even for years and years to come.

All of this relates back to my ideas about interpretation. Namely, it's not the interpretation that's important, but how strong the defense of the interpretation is. It may seem obvious that "Moby-Dick" is about a whole lot more than a simple story of a man killing a whale, but if someone is able to give me a rousing defense of that interpretation while another person gives a lackluster rebuttal, well I'm going to value the defense of the seemingly "wrong" interpretation over the defense of the seemingly "right" one. In the same way, if someone can provide a compelling argument as to why Nickelback is a more intelligent act than The Beatles, I'll value their compelling argument over a lackluster argument in favor of The Beatles.

Interpretation is like intelligence in art. We all have out basic ideas about what is "right" and "wrong", but since we lack any objective bearings on what is "actually" right or wrong, ultimately what matters is how well those ideas are defended.
User avatar
babydoll
Movin' On Up
Posts: 970
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2016 7:07 pm

Re: The Death of the Author

Post by babydoll »

Beautiful post, Nick. While I am with you that the perceived "intelligence" is all basically the audience's objectiveness towards it, I dismiss the concept of having awful taste. Just because I do have a soft spot for pop music, with the simpleness of the lyrics and its addicting rhythm, it doesn't mean I necessarily have horrible taste. I love the Beatles as much as everyone else does, and appreciate She Loves You because of it's boy band music at its best, yet love Strawberry Fields Forever due to its depth. Maybe one finds beauty in Nickelback's music like I find in the lyrics of She Loves You or in Madonna's music videos.

Ultimately what its intelligence really is rests in the intelligence of the audience making his/her case for or against it. Madonna's music and music videos are intelligent, and do speak for her, because she is more daring than others. Yet people despise her music, and her image, because of what she represents. That to me is quite unfair to the artist because she's making a point with her sexuality. I, as a fan, would rather hear others say simply, "I do not like her music, because to me, the lyrics aren't poetic and too much of the music is focused on electronics." Just as I would rather hear people say "Madonna is an amazing artist, because of her influence on artists such as Britney Spears and Rihanna" as opposed to "#madonna #queenofpop." Using hashtags really tells me that you haven't interpreted her artistry as much as heard - which is very different.

Again everyone has different views of a common piece. It doesn't matter which he/she likes or dislikes. Yes, one may be incredulous over what another likes, as I would be of Nickelback and Milli Vanilli, but the intelligence of the music can be revealed through one's reasoning.
Nick
Running Up That Hill
Posts: 3115
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 9:28 pm
Location: New York State

Re: The Death of the Author

Post by Nick »

babydoll wrote:Beautiful post, Nick. While I am with you that the perceived "intelligence" is all basically the audience's objectiveness towards it, I dismiss the concept of having awful taste.
I should also clarify here that I also reject the concept of "good" or "bad" taste when used in an objective manner. When I say something like "oh, my friend has good taste" that's really a code for "oh, my friend has a taste that I think highly of", not an objective value judgment of their taste.
User avatar
luney6
Movin' On Up
Posts: 868
Joined: Sat May 31, 2014 8:50 pm

Re: The Death of the Author

Post by luney6 »

Edited: Sorry, I was a little busy, and didn't read the posts before carefully enough. I will delete this post after a while and give a new one.
"God grant me the serenity to accept things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference."
User avatar
luney6
Movin' On Up
Posts: 868
Joined: Sat May 31, 2014 8:50 pm

Re: The Death of the Author

Post by luney6 »

Nick wrote:
luney6 wrote: I think that there is definitely a way to measure the merit of art, and that stems from the intellectual effort put in by the
artist. I mean surely, as PlasticRam said, it is possible to see that The Beatles were a better band than Nickelback are, and for this simple reason. And this objectivity can be applied to bands that are closer in their efforts as well.

Another fault I see with the subjectivity theory is that, when one looks to derive pleasure of visceral satisfaction from a work, the art will eventually wear out. A catchy pop tune that connects with you will eventually lose its meaning, while a thick introspective piece will provide continuous satisfaction as you listen to it more, and find more intricacies in it. Similarly for movies and for films.
I take two issues with this idea.

First, I take issue with the idea that we can measure how intellectual a work of art, or an artist is, in any quantifiable way. While it may be seemingly obvious to you and I that The Beatles are a more "intellectual" band than Nickelback, I would not say that this means that The Beatles are objectively a more intellectual band than Nickelback, as how are we defining intellectual? If I want to know how tall I am, I'll take a ruler and measure myself. If I want to see how much a certain book weighs, I'll place it on a scale. If I want to tell how hot it is outside, I'll use a thermometer. If I want to determine how intellectual a work of art is...I'll...?

When it comes to objective measurements, be it distance, duration, weight, temperature, atmospheric pressure, luminosity, mass, etc. we have an easy way to record the measurement in a numeric term. We have no such way to do so when it comes to the intelligence of a work of art. If intelligence is objective, then why does it get a pass from this when every other objective measurement follows such stringent rules? There are no scientists sitting around in lab coats going "ahhh yes, "She Loves You" clearly measures a 75 on the intelligence scale, while "How You Remind Me" sits at a paltry 13". Again, you may go, "ahhh Nick, but you're just being difficult. Isn't is obvious that The Beatles are more intelligent, objectively speaking, than Nickelback??"


To which I would respond that it really isn't all that obvious, objectively speaking. It may seem more obvious to me that (and I'm just throwing names out here, no need to read too far into this) George Clooney is more attractive than Steve Buscemi. But I'm not going to say that Clooney is "objectively" better looking. If my friend honestly finds Buscemi more attractive, I'm not going to call him/her objectively wrong. In the same way this is how intelligence works with regard to a work of art. If my friend honestly believes that the music of Nickelback is more intelligent than that of The Beatles, well then my friend has awful taste in music, but I wouldn't say they're objectively wrong. And until I see a way to measure intelligence in music, then I'll continue saying they're not objectively wrong.

Second off, even if we can measure how intellectual a work of art is, I see no reason why a work of art's "intelligence" should be the determining factor of how objectively "good" or "bad" it is. What if intelligence just isn't what I value in music? What if I only value lyrical content? Or what if I only value how danceable the song is? Or the singer's vocal range? Or what if I only value songs that use a xylophone? I just can't see why "intelligence" should be the end all to quality. Several of the most acclaimed music artists have made some pretty "dumb" music. Daft Punk have made "dumb" music. The Ramones have made "dumb" music. Oasis have made "dumb" music. And there's a lot of examples of "dumb" music that I get more out of than I do "smart" music, and I'm sure that applies to all of us. You make a claim that "smart" music lasts longer than "dumb" music, but the continued popularity of those three aforementioned artists proves that wrong. The most popular music of the 1980s in 2016 are artists like Michael Jackson and Madonna, artists I like a lot, but certainly artists that made "dumb" music, at least compared to some of the most avant-garde, forward thinking acts of that era. Clearly there's something more than how "intelligent" a song is that allows us to enjoy it, even for years and years to come.

All of this relates back to my ideas about interpretation. Namely, it's not the interpretation that's important, but how strong the defense of the interpretation is. It may seem obvious that "Moby-Dick" is about a whole lot more than a simple story of a man killing a whale, but if someone is able to give me a rousing defense of that interpretation while another person gives a lackluster rebuttal, well I'm going to value the defense of the seemingly "wrong" interpretation over the defense of the seemingly "right" one. In the same way, if someone can provide a compelling argument as to why Nickelback is a more intelligent act than The Beatles, I'll value their compelling argument over a lackluster argument in favor of The Beatles.

Interpretation is like intelligence in art. We all have out basic ideas about what is "right" and "wrong", but since we lack any objective bearings on what is "actually" right or wrong, ultimately what matters is how well those ideas are defended.
Now, good argument, but I had said intellectual effort, and not intelligence. Intellectual effort could be taken to combine the artist's ability to imbue originality into his work, add depth to the art, etc, etc. Simply put, would you not agree that Moby Dick is a better book than Twilight is? It is possible to objectively grasp that Moby Dick is a more original book than Twilight is, and that Moby Dick has more depth than Twilight does. You may argue that Twilight is a complex analogy for something else, but unless there is enough evidence to suggest that the author is able to convey this within the novel, it is simply not a correct argument. Any work of art may have infinite interpretations, but that does not display the artist's intellectual effort, does it? This is in fact what you have actually said in your last paragraph, in a sense. The artist's intellectual effort can be argued, but until there is a proper demonstrable argument that conveys Twilight's artistic merits, properly, most people, unemotionally attached, will agree that Moby Dick is a greater work. And that is the basis of my objectivity claim. This can be asserted onto other works of art as well, which are closer together in terms of quality. So greatness can be argued, but until a fair argument is made against it, a great work of art will remain great. Hence, in the end, are you not arguing that art is objective?
"God grant me the serenity to accept things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference."
User avatar
BleuPanda
Higher Ground
Posts: 4717
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 1:20 am
Location: Urbana, IL

Re: The Death of the Author

Post by BleuPanda »

Another observation: our discussion of this subject is itself influenced by our own interpretations. It feels like many of us are viewing art in a similar manner, but what some interpret as elements coming from the author, others interpret as coming strictly from the work. But in many cases we are coming to the same conclusion about a lot of these works.
Nick
Running Up That Hill
Posts: 3115
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 9:28 pm
Location: New York State

Re: The Death of the Author

Post by Nick »

luney6 wrote: Now, good argument, but I had said intellectual effort, and not intelligence. Intellectual effort could be taken to combine the artist's ability to imbue originality into his work, add depth to the art, etc, etc. Simply put, would you not agree that Moby Dick is a better book than Twilight is?
I have read "Moby-Dick" but I haven't read "Twilight". I did have to misfortune of seeing the movie though, and I have a pretty good idea about the quality of the book's writing as I've read a few excerpts. I think it's safe to say that I wouldn't like the book "Twilight". So yes, I would agree that "Moby-Dick" is probably a better book than "Twilight". But this is a little bit of semantic trickery, isn't it? Because when you say "better" you mean "objectively better" and when I say "better" I'm using it as a code word for "I would agree that "Moby-Dick" is probably a book I would get more out of than "Twilight"", i.e. I'm using it in a subjective sense. Nevertheless...
luney6 wrote:It is possible to objectively grasp that Moby Dick is a more original book than Twilight is, and that Moby Dick has more depth than Twilight does.
You may find my answers obtuse (I hope you don't, but I could see how someone would), but I would say that no- it is not possible to objectively grasp how "Moby-Dick" has more "depth" or "originality" than "Twilight". When we talk about things that are objective, we deal in the realm of facts. Facts that can be mathematical in nature ("2 + 2 =4"), facts that can be scientific in nature ("gravity, electromagnetism, the weak nuclear force, and the strong nuclear force are the four fundamental forces in the universe"), or facts that can be historical in nature ("Abraham Lincoln was the 16th president of the United States"). Aesthetic judgments, such as whether a work of art is "better" than another, whether a work of art is more "complex" than another, or whether a work of art is more "original" than another, are not objective, as they aren't historical events, nor are they observations about the universe that can be proven or disproven in a scientific manner. In the absence of any objectivity, aesthetic judgments are left to live or die on the strength of the arguments in favor of them. The claim that "Moby-Dick" is more original than "Twilight" is only as strong as the argument supporting said claim. Which brings us to...
luney6 wrote:You may argue that Twilight is a complex analogy for something else, but unless there is enough evidence to suggest that the author is able to convey this within the novel, it is simply not a correct argument. Any work of art may have infinite interpretations, but that does not display the artist's intellectual effort, does it?
This is a good point, but I would argue that just because it may seem impossible to formulate an argument for "Twilight"'s superiority over "Moby-Dick", does not mean it is so. You say that "unless there is enough evidence to suggest that the author is able to convey this within the novel, it is simply not a correct argument", but why should the author's intentions matter? This is directly related to my rebuttals of the notion that the author's interpretation is essential to understanding a work of art. If the intentions of the artist matter, then how can we ever hope to interpret art that's created anonymously? If the intentions of Ray Bradbury matter, then how could we ever believe that "Fahrenheit 451" is about censorship, even though he says it isn't? It may seem obvious to us what the author of "Twilight" was trying to accomplish, but if a skilled debater can successfully argue that it's about something entirely different, then why should we discount his argument? To me, the amount of intellectual effort an artist put into their work is trivial. What matters is the amount of intellectual effort the interpreter put into their interpretation. If you learned that the director of a movie you loathed put a great deal of intellectual effort into that movie, would that make you like it more? Would it make it a "great" movie in your eyes? On the flip side, if the director of a movie you loved put little intellectual effort into that movie, would that make you dislike it? Would it make it a terrible movie in your eyes?
luney6 wrote:This is in fact what you have actually said in your last paragraph, in a sense. The artist's intellectual effort can be argued, but until there is a proper demonstrable argument that conveys Twilight's artistic merits, properly, most people, unemotionally attached, will agree that Moby Dick is a greater work. And that is the basis of my objectivity claim. This can be asserted onto other works of art as well, which are closer together in terms of quality. So greatness can be argued, but until a fair argument is made against it, a great work of art will remain great. Hence, in the end, are you not arguing that art is objective?
If greatness can be argued then it's not objective. Nobody is going to debate that 6 feet is shorter than 3 feet. I wouldn't say that we have to wait until an argument comes along in favor of "Twilight" over "Moby-Dick" to make the claims I'm making. The mere notion that such an argument could, in all possibility, given the greatest debater who ever lived, be made- that's all that's needed to make my claims.
User avatar
babydoll
Movin' On Up
Posts: 970
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2016 7:07 pm

Re: The Death of the Author

Post by babydoll »

Hmm, BleuPanda, I bet you didn't think this thread would receive as much attention, did you? :P

While luney6 does bring up a marvelous point about which the author was trying to accomplish - I would like to note I kind of mentioned this, but not as detailing as luney6 or Nick's responses - I would like to bring up the notion of the subconscious. You must remember that Stephanie Meyer wrote Twilight based on a dream, the subconscious's metaphorical way of telling us things. Her subconscious was telling her something, therefore making it ideal for interpretation. Moby-Dick is a deep book about man's twisted details. While Moby-Dick is perhaps more psychologically interesting than Twilight, it wouldn't be wise to dismiss Twilight entirely in that area. Perhaps even more important is how a work of art can truly impact its audience's life/subconscious.
User avatar
BleuPanda
Higher Ground
Posts: 4717
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 1:20 am
Location: Urbana, IL

Re: The Death of the Author

Post by BleuPanda »

When I approach the so-called 'objective' merits of a work, I try to approach it from a cultural sense. Some subjectively great works have had objective impacts on their medium, whether it be through creating new techniques or being specifically cited by future artists. I think a work that directly influences the shape of things to come has some objective merit. So, to me, a great work is partially an influential work (though it's my part as an individual to either convince others to be influenced by certain under-appreciated works or to go out and make something myself). So, to me, it's not about observing a work and determining whether it is worthy of being called great; instead, I assess works that are already considered great and try to find the reasoning why. Personally, I find it less satisfying to determine whether I agree than it is to attempt truly understanding the acclaim; that's part of the reason Layla and Other Assorted Love Songs frustrates me so much, as it's the one album in the top 100 here I simply do not understand. That isn't to say a work lacking in influence is lacking in greatness; perhaps that work simply hasn't found the right mind to resonate with. Additionally, the influence can extend beyond the boundaries of art.

I think both TSPDT and AM do a great job clarifying that they aren't a list of the best work, which is entirely subjective, but rather the most 'acclaimed' pieces. Citizen Kane, under the metrics TSPDT uses, is objectively the most acclaimed film. What that acclaim means is to be debated and rightfully argued with, but that title is bestowed with fair measures.

Naturally, this view doesn't work for everything, especially new works that haven't had the time to be influential; there are also works that don't challenge systems but rather seek to perfect. But I also think an objectively great film and a subjectively great film can be made up of entirely different parts; what matters on a cultural level is an objectively great films, while an individual cares more about subjective elements. But when enough subjective elements resonate with enough people, it becomes a cultural force and therefore objectively 'great.' And, just as much as I believe art isn't made in a vacuum, I also believe it isn't consumed in a vacuum.

But when we get down to this discussion, when you ask me for my opinion on a film, are you asking for my thoughts on what did and didn't work, or are you asking for what elements have created its cultural reception? In a retrospective, the latter would be more important, but I think any other discussion is more meaningful when we discuss the former.
Nick
Running Up That Hill
Posts: 3115
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 9:28 pm
Location: New York State

Re: The Death of the Author

Post by Nick »

BleuPanda wrote:When I approach the so-called 'objective' merits of a work, I try to approach it from a cultural sense. Some subjectively great works have had objective impacts on their medium, whether it be through creating new techniques or being specifically cited by future artists. I think a work that directly influences the shape of things to come has some objective merit. So, to me, a great work is partially an influential work (though it's my part as an individual to either convince others to be influenced by certain under-appreciated works or to go out and make something myself). So, to me, it's not about observing a work and determining whether it is worthy of being called great; instead, I assess works that are already considered great and try to find the reasoning why. Personally, I find it less satisfying to determine whether I agree than it is to attempt truly understanding the acclaim; that's part of the reason Layla and Other Assorted Love Songs frustrates me so much, as it's the one album in the top 100 here I simply do not understand. That isn't to say a work lacking in influence is lacking in greatness; perhaps that work simply hasn't found the right mind to resonate with. Additionally, the influence can extend beyond the boundaries of art.

I think both TSPDT and AM do a great job clarifying that they aren't a list of the best work, which is entirely subjective, but rather the most 'acclaimed' pieces. Citizen Kane, under the metrics TSPDT uses, is objectively the most acclaimed film. What that acclaim means is to be debated and rightfully argued with, but that title is bestowed with fair measures.

Naturally, this view doesn't work for everything, especially new works that haven't had the time to be influential; there are also works that don't challenge systems but rather seek to perfect. But I also think an objectively great film and a subjectively great film can be made up of entirely different parts; what matters on a cultural level is an objectively great films, while an individual cares more about subjective elements. But when enough subjective elements resonate with enough people, it becomes a cultural force and therefore objectively 'great.' And, just as much as I believe art isn't made in a vacuum, I also believe it isn't consumed in a vacuum.

But when we get down to this discussion, when you ask me for my opinion on a film, are you asking for my thoughts on what did and didn't work, or are you asking for what elements have created its cultural reception? In a retrospective, the latter would be more important, but I think any other discussion is more meaningful when we discuss the former.
Well I think here we're getting into two different ideas about the word "great" or "greatness", and I think these two different ideas can lead to a lot of confusion. I think this confusion was what lead to a lot of disagreements between us and Bruce. Bruce came from a position where the word "great" meant some combination of subjective (aesthetic judgment) and objective (influence, acclaim, sales, "icon" status) factors. I'm not here to debate what the proper use of the word "great" should be, but it may be best for future discussions if we tried to differentiate the two more clearly.
User avatar
BleuPanda
Higher Ground
Posts: 4717
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 1:20 am
Location: Urbana, IL

Re: The Death of the Author

Post by BleuPanda »

Nick wrote:
BleuPanda wrote:When I approach the so-called 'objective' merits of a work, I try to approach it from a cultural sense. Some subjectively great works have had objective impacts on their medium, whether it be through creating new techniques or being specifically cited by future artists. I think a work that directly influences the shape of things to come has some objective merit. So, to me, a great work is partially an influential work (though it's my part as an individual to either convince others to be influenced by certain under-appreciated works or to go out and make something myself). So, to me, it's not about observing a work and determining whether it is worthy of being called great; instead, I assess works that are already considered great and try to find the reasoning why. Personally, I find it less satisfying to determine whether I agree than it is to attempt truly understanding the acclaim; that's part of the reason Layla and Other Assorted Love Songs frustrates me so much, as it's the one album in the top 100 here I simply do not understand. That isn't to say a work lacking in influence is lacking in greatness; perhaps that work simply hasn't found the right mind to resonate with. Additionally, the influence can extend beyond the boundaries of art.

I think both TSPDT and AM do a great job clarifying that they aren't a list of the best work, which is entirely subjective, but rather the most 'acclaimed' pieces. Citizen Kane, under the metrics TSPDT uses, is objectively the most acclaimed film. What that acclaim means is to be debated and rightfully argued with, but that title is bestowed with fair measures.

Naturally, this view doesn't work for everything, especially new works that haven't had the time to be influential; there are also works that don't challenge systems but rather seek to perfect. But I also think an objectively great film and a subjectively great film can be made up of entirely different parts; what matters on a cultural level is an objectively great films, while an individual cares more about subjective elements. But when enough subjective elements resonate with enough people, it becomes a cultural force and therefore objectively 'great.' And, just as much as I believe art isn't made in a vacuum, I also believe it isn't consumed in a vacuum.

But when we get down to this discussion, when you ask me for my opinion on a film, are you asking for my thoughts on what did and didn't work, or are you asking for what elements have created its cultural reception? In a retrospective, the latter would be more important, but I think any other discussion is more meaningful when we discuss the former.
Well I think here we're getting into two different ideas about the word "great" or "greatness", and I think these two different ideas can lead to a lot of confusion. I think this confusion was what lead to a lot of disagreements between us and Bruce. Bruce came from a position where the word "great" meant some combination of subjective (aesthetic judgment) and objective (influence, acclaim, sales, "icon" status) factors. I'm not here to debate what the proper use of the word "great" should be, but it may be best for future discussions if we tried to differentiate the two more clearly.

I'm happy you noticed, as that was kind of what I was trying to do. It would be hard to even determine what it means to be 'great' in an objective sense, as it's actually a lot harder to define than individual experiences. It deals a lot with theoreticals, an almost futile attempt to understand what our collective society gets out of a work of art.
User avatar
PlasticRam
Into the Groove
Posts: 2202
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2013 12:51 am

Re: The Death of the Author

Post by PlasticRam »

I like Paul McCartney's view on people interpreting his art, which is that you can interpret it how you want, as long as it's not some Charles Manson stuff.
I feel like that
User avatar
BleuPanda
Higher Ground
Posts: 4717
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 1:20 am
Location: Urbana, IL

Re: The Death of the Author

Post by BleuPanda »

PlasticRam wrote:I like Paul McCartney's view on people interpreting his art, which is that you can interpret it how you want, as long as it's not some Charles Manson stuff.

I was considering bringing that up as my issue with the idea of all interpretations being 'valid.' People can really warp the meaning of works, but there were subtler ways of tackling the issue.

I also think, along with 'greatness,' we need to define 'meaning.' It can both mean 'the intended message of a work' (which may or may not actually be apparent) vs. 'the implicit ideologies of the work'. So, a book from the late 1800s might make a very poignant statement on the way men viewed women in that era, but that might be completely unrelated to the central purpose of its existence. A lot of works have multiple meanings even to an individual.
User avatar
babydoll
Movin' On Up
Posts: 970
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2016 7:07 pm

Re: The Death of the Author

Post by babydoll »

BleuPanda wrote:It would be hard to even determine what it means to be 'great' in an objective sense, as it's actually a lot harder to define than individual experiences. It deals a lot with theoreticals, an almost futile attempt to understand what our collective society gets out of a work of art.
Exactly what I've been trying to say, put into better words and phrasings!!!

However it is important that a person of intellect do try to pinpoint the reason of their like/dislike, and their arguments for their points, interpretative or not. It is a sticky area, and collectiveness of opinion generally leads to theoretical-ness, but that doesn't mean theoreticals are not necessarily bad. It just means it just doesn't speak for our individual view. We all love different songs and feel differently about them. Collectiveness does not speak for your point of view on it, but you can bring your ideas forth through voice in an intellectual way. Ultimately that is what interpretation means: an idea without substantive proof for reasoning the work's existence. And ultimately, collected opinions on the work of art on whether it's good or bad or of worth rests on the concept of recommendation; which is what this website is about.
User avatar
luney6
Movin' On Up
Posts: 868
Joined: Sat May 31, 2014 8:50 pm

Re: The Death of the Author

Post by luney6 »

Okay. I have a step by step method worked out now. I think it will resolve this argument at its roots, perhaps in favor of either side.

I remember reading somewhere that you're an architecture student Nick. In that case, if everything is subjective, then why do you study architecture? And if you were to pick up a bum off of the street, would his opinion on architecture be as good as yours. Same for BleuPanda, regarding film and writing.
"God grant me the serenity to accept things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference."
User avatar
BleuPanda
Higher Ground
Posts: 4717
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 1:20 am
Location: Urbana, IL

Re: The Death of the Author

Post by BleuPanda »

The question, then, is where does our education on the matter come from. Film Theory doesn't pop out of thin air; it's largely based on observation, and much of that observation comes from our own studies of others. So, no, a random person off the street might not be able to articulate why a certain work speaks to them; at the same time, I consider their view important in forming my own; why does this person respond in this way? But my approach to the cultural importance of arts has always been based in popular reactions and interpretations. However, in considering backgrounds, I do put some weight over others. No matter how good they are at speaking, I would never take seriously a person who has only seen a dozen films; this was my problem with Ebert and his completely ignorant video game crusade. You can't claim video games hold little potential for artistic statements if you have never played one (nor can you whenever so many people so clearly have already had such reactions, but that goes back to my issue of trying to speak for an audience one doesn't agree with), as you lack the experience to know why people believe the opposite stance. So I do weigh film critics and filmmakers more, as they are more likely to have a vast knowledge of cinema. And that doesn't necessarily mean studying film as much as simply watching and interpreting a wide variety until you can articulate the reasons behind your reaction; and, yes, I think a key part of understanding art is through comparative analysis. Similarly, I will consider someone's opinion more worthy of discussion if they can elaborate why they feel a certain way.

Because so much of this relies on communication and interpretation, that means the cultural meaning of a work can change over time. Just look at The Birth of a Nation, a film that was once held up as a completely revolutionary piece to one that is quietly being erased, little more than a shameful footnote. A film wouldn't change like that if art is objective; what was once considered good could lose all meaning. To me, it's all percentages. "90% of viewers love the set design in Star Wars," "30% of viewers love the romance in Twilight while the other 70% die just a little bit faster while watching," etc. There's no objectivity here, but rather what does and doesn't work and interpreting why those opinions form, and as an aspiring artist figure out how to recreate those feelings in a new way.

If film was objective, we would have figured it out by now. But a great film isn't made from a formula, because what works for one film won't necessarily work for another. Comparing the most acclaimed films from the last two years, Boyhood and Mad Max, it's clear they're not being judged by the same criteria. It's because all films are following their own strands. The quality of a film would be predictable from the start if there were objective qualities to follow, but instead each filmmaker finds their own set of films to take inspiration from, because each of these people have their own truth about what makes a great film.

One thing to consider: when writing reviews, one can usually speak completely on their own. From the other end, a retrospective on a work rarely works if it's exclusively written solely from the point of view of the author. There's a need to consider the immediate impact (which comes from both initial reviews and audience reactions), the lasting impact (how people have talked about the film since then), the way it has influenced other works (which would involve citing those works), etc. So many of these can be at odds with each other, but they all must be considered to determine the reason such-and-such film is still talked about 50 years later.


But either way, to get back to the question: this random person would likely know less about film than I do, but that comes from my knowledge of subjective reactions and theories about what does and doesn't work. Nothing in my studies have been about objective elements, and most film scholars would resist such an ideology.
User avatar
luney6
Movin' On Up
Posts: 868
Joined: Sat May 31, 2014 8:50 pm

Re: The Death of the Author

Post by luney6 »

The fact that you would weigh one opinion more than other suggests that there is a difference in quality of the opinion, and hence that not all opinions are equal, right? And what about architecture?
"God grant me the serenity to accept things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference."
Nick
Running Up That Hill
Posts: 3115
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 9:28 pm
Location: New York State

Re: The Death of the Author

Post by Nick »

luney6 wrote:Okay. I have a step by step method worked out now. I think it will resolve this argument at its roots, perhaps in favor of either side.

I remember reading somewhere that you're an architecture student Nick. In that case, if everything is subjective, then why do you study architecture? And if you were to pick up a bum off of the street, would his opinion on architecture be as good as yours. Same for BleuPanda, regarding film and writing.
Your memory serves you correct, I am an architecture student. But there's a lot about architecture that is objective, like whether the building would stand or not, or the best way to construct a certain building component, or how to properly coordinate your HVAC system with your structural system in order to decrease your floor slab thickness, or how many bathrooms or emergency exits the IBC requires for a particular building, or etc. So in these regards, I'd say my opinion is certainly worth more than the opinion of the bum off the street, because these are rather black and white issues.

However, I know this isn't what you're asking me about, you're asking me about aesthetics. And yeah, a lot about architecture school is about aesthetics (though, honestly, it's a lot less than most people think), which means I've taken tons of classes on architectural history and theory and even painting and drawing classes and classes on art history and yadda yadda yadda. The point is, I've taken a load of these classes that supposedly "better" my sense of aesthetics. But I would never suggest that all this knowledge makes my sense of aesthetics "correct" or that the bum off the street is objectively wrong when he says that the local Wal-Mart is a more beautiful building than, say, the Sagrada Familia. In fact, what I'm about to say neatly ties back in with what I've been saying throughout this thread- it's not the opinion that matters, it's the defense of the opinion. All those classes on aesthetics have, I believe, given me the ability to better formulate a defense of my opinion, so when the bum off the street tells me he thinks the local Wal-Mart is more beautiful than the Sagrada Familia, I can formulate a much better counter-argument than his initial argument.
User avatar
BleuPanda
Higher Ground
Posts: 4717
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 1:20 am
Location: Urbana, IL

Re: The Death of the Author

Post by BleuPanda »

luney6 wrote:The fact that you would weigh one opinion more than other suggests that there is a difference in quality of the opinion, and hence that not all opinions are equal, right? And what about architecture?

Of course there's a difference in quality for the opinion. But there's a problem: two equally valuable opinions from trusted sources could disagree with each other. Just because all opinions aren't equal doesn't mean there's a secret 'correct' opinion at the center of everything. Every individual has their own criteria. As some of our discussions have made clear, there are film critics who swear by narrative while there are others who swear by technique and even others who swear by stylistic concerns. All of these are equally valid but different ways of looking at a work, and they will all come up with different reasons behind their support for a film.
User avatar
babydoll
Movin' On Up
Posts: 970
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2016 7:07 pm

Re: The Death of the Author

Post by babydoll »

BleuPanda wrote:The question, then, is where does our education on the matter come from. Film Theory doesn't pop out of thin air; it's largely based on observation, and much of that observation comes from our own studies of others. So, no, a random person off the street might not be able to articulate why a certain work speaks to them; at the same time, I consider their view important in forming my own; why does this person respond in this way? But my approach to the cultural importance of arts has always been based in popular reactions and interpretations. However, in considering backgrounds, I do put some weight over others. No matter how good they are at speaking, I would never take seriously a person who has only seen a dozen films; this was my problem with Ebert and his completely ignorant video game crusade. You can't claim video games hold little potential for artistic statements if you have never played one (nor can you whenever so many people so clearly have already had such reactions, but that goes back to my issue of trying to speak for an audience one doesn't agree with), as you lack the experience to know why people believe the opposite stance. So I do weigh film critics and filmmakers more, as they are more likely to have a vast knowledge of cinema. And that doesn't necessarily mean studying film as much as simply watching and interpreting a wide variety until you can articulate the reasons behind your reaction; and, yes, I think a key part of understanding art is through comparative analysis. Similarly, I will consider someone's opinion more worthy of discussion if they can elaborate why they feel a certain way.
Hmm... Yes, having more knowledge about certain things will make your opinion more valuable, but just because I happen to be a layman where film theory is concerned, does that not mean I can't theorize on my own? While Martin Scorsese's output on Italian films or French films may be valuable, and wonderful to hear, can I not completely revitalize your opinion on L'avventura even after dozens of viewings, because I am a layman? I don't necessary like the idea of depending on SOLELY professional opinion if I do lay a good and intelligent point across the board. Just some research can be wonderful, and opinion is more valuable than fact when it comes to interpretation. Film critics I find to be wonderfully informed, but sometimes that information do lead to facts.
BleuPanda wrote:Because so much of this relies on communication and interpretation, that means the cultural meaning of a work can change over time. Just look at The Birth of a Nation, a film that was once held up as a completely revolutionary piece to one that is quietly being erased, little more than a shameful footnote. A film wouldn't change like that if art is objective; what was once considered good could lose all meaning.
Actually I wouldn't dismiss it as being a little more than a shameful footnote. The film does contain two glorious moments - when the Confederate Colonel, in last minute desperation, stuffs a Union flag into the cannon, and when the Colonel comes home and his little sister joyously hugs him even after all the turmoil of sacrifice. And I am actually kind of glad you brought up this film in this discussion as D.W. Griffith's past experiences of being a child of the last generation of the Old South led to the racism overtly found in this film. Therefore this is a time where fact and opinion must collide in an interpretation of the overall product.
BleuPanda wrote:For me, it's all percentages.
But doesn't percentages end up being fact? When interpreting, shouldn't facts lead to opinions, not to facts?
User avatar
luney6
Movin' On Up
Posts: 868
Joined: Sat May 31, 2014 8:50 pm

Re: The Death of the Author

Post by luney6 »

Your memory serves you correct, I am an architecture student. But there's a lot about architecture that is objective, like whether the building would stand or not, or the best way to construct a certain building component, or how to properly coordinate your HVAC system with your structural system in order to decrease your floor slab thickness, or how many bathrooms or emergency exits the IBC requires for a particular building, or etc.
I anticipated that you would say this, which is why I mentioned architecture before film. In fact, it's why I mentioned architecture at all.

Maths is a study of patterns in nature. We say that 2 + 2 = 4, because, for example, in the past, whenever two apples and two apples have been put together, four apples have been obtained. If, one day, you started getting five apples, for whatever reason, dimensional, calculational, etc, it would be us who would be changing our function. Similarly, your opinion on whether or not a building will stand, is based on the fact that whenever these variables have been put together this way, the building has always stood. By logic, it is also notable that in the past, there was another variable that didn't effect the building, that will now. Hence, based on this, it will be logical for whoever is hiring you to assume, that the statement given by a bum on the street is as good as the design given by you. But the reason he hires you and not the bum is that you can 'argue' that the building in your design will stand. Does that make your take on whether or not the building will stand subjective? You said to my previous argument that 'if greatness can be argued it is not subjective'. This takes me back to my previous argument.

You also commented on the aesthetics of beauty. There, again, I disagree with you, as I say that something beautiful (or something pleasing, or something attractive) is completely subjective. Sure, you could use the golden ratio to find what most people would find beautiful, but even then, what I find beautiful or pleasing or attractive, will be different from what you find beautiful or pleasing or attractive, because that will not only be based on what my eyes find it to be, but also on my experiences, etc, etc. Basic example: If I had a childhood room that I really liked, that was red, I will find a red building more pleasing than a black one, whereas you may not.

But art is about more than beauty, isn't it? If it was, then why isn't making love to a beautiful woman, who you find very attractive not art? It will be an act that is viscerally pleasing, and satisfying, right? Why isn't riding a roller coaster to obtain an adrenaline rush not art? Why watch Mad Max to do it, where you have to sit through two hours of the bad acting. Is a game of basketball art? If a guy lies down on the piano, and the noise that comes is recorded and sold, and someone likes it, would you say that it is at an equal level as a master playing Mozart?

I think (but am not sure) that the main difference lies in what we each believe to be the purpose of art. I say that art is a form of communication. Where science looks at the universe, and tries to figure it out, art looks at the universe through the human mind, asking why. You may say that is philosophy in motion. Art is not just about liking something viscerally.

Now the second part:

BleuPanda, you say that everyone looks at art a different way. A technically innovative work can be considered 'great'. Then, why isn't progressive rock, which may be technically great and innovative, considered 'great'? It is the same argument as you used against Birdman, right? As you said, before, there are engineers, and then there are writers. I would replace writers with the word artists. A technically excellent movie showing new techniques can be great, but then only as great as the brothers who invented film, or the man who invented the camera. The film may be viscerally pleasing as well, but I do not believe that it can be called to be of higher quality than a film which implements both, narratives and technical prowess.
"God grant me the serenity to accept things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference."
User avatar
BleuPanda
Higher Ground
Posts: 4717
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 1:20 am
Location: Urbana, IL

Re: The Death of the Author

Post by BleuPanda »

It feels like no matter how many times it is said, you're going to go back to the same points. People look at films for different reasons than you. That's it. The end. It's a waste of my time to say anything more, because I'm pretty sure everyone else here understands where I'm coming from, while all you really want to do is convince me that my way is somehow incorrect.

You can't just respond to a statement like "People view art differently" with "beauty isn't good enough." No, beauty damn well is good enough for a ton of people. Art can totally be about liking something viscerally. Do you really not understand that there are people other than you who view art this way, among many other ways? You keep trying to make these objective statements while ignoring even the people around you saying otherwise, and you can't speak for society simply by speaking from your own perspective. Just admit already that you are the one who cares about this stuff. It's completely fine to have your own opinion if you stop talking down to others for not having the same perspective. Every single time, it gets back to you noting your own supremacy, how much better your way of viewing art is than others; after all, the way other people look at film is simply not enough.

And, no, none of those random things you listed are considered art for the simplest reason: they're not created with the intent of human expression.

(and, in case you haven't noticed, there are 21 progressive rock albums in the top 1000 on this site, so that genre is considered 'great.' There's a difference between a purely technical work that succeeds at innovating and one that doesn't, and I was comparing Birdman to the latter)
User avatar
luney6
Movin' On Up
Posts: 868
Joined: Sat May 31, 2014 8:50 pm

Re: The Death of the Author

Post by luney6 »

BleuPanda wrote:It feels like no matter how many times it is said, you're going to go back to the same points. People look at films for different reasons than you. That's it. The end. It's a waste of my time to say anything more, because I'm pretty sure everyone else here understands where I'm coming from, while all you really want to do is convince me that my way is somehow incorrect.

You can't just respond to a statement like "People view art differently" with "beauty isn't good enough." No, beauty damn well is good enough for a ton of people. Art can totally be about liking something viscerally. Do you really not understand that there are people other than you who view art this way, among many other ways? You keep trying to make these objective statements while ignoring even the people around you saying otherwise, and you can't speak for society simply by speaking from your own perspective. Just admit already that you are the one who cares about this stuff. It's completely fine to have your own opinion if you stop talking down to others for not having the same perspective. Every single time, it gets back to you noting your own supremacy, how much better your way of viewing art is than others; after all, the way other people look at film is simply not enough.

And, no, none of those random things you listed are considered art for the simplest reason: they're not created with the intent of human expression.

(and, in case you haven't noticed, there are 21 progressive rock albums in the top 1000 on this site, so that genre is considered 'great.' There's a difference between a purely technical work that succeeds at innovating and one that doesn't, and I was comparing Birdman to the latter)
What can I say, BleuPanda. I am not trying to say that my way is better, or that I am at all smarter, for I do not believe it. I feel like I used to view art viscerally as well, until recently, when I had a similar argument with someone else, and I believe viewing it as a means of communication offers more satisfaction, which is what I want to share, while strengthening or improving my own views on the matter. I have already told you what I feel about arguments, and the rest is upto you to decide. If you truly believe that everything is subjective, then what is the point of having a debate anyways? No offense at all (but I'm beginning to feel like you're intent on escaping arguments by personalising them and trying to win sympathy.)

Also, what difference does it make to you, while obtaining satisfaction from it, whether or not something was made for human expression? You could view someone walking as their way of expression and call it art. I could pile a bunch of stones and call it expression, where you're free to discern whatever meaning you want of it to.

Finally, I am very fond of some progressive rock, as you already may know. I was simply using it as an example because you already had. The example of the Lumiere brothers still stands, as to why they are not considered the greatest filmmakers of all time. As does that of the inventor of camera, etc, etc. My point is that there is a difference between technical prowess and artistic prowess. I can accept them as great engineers, important enough to be remembered, but not great artists.

The reason I'm going back to the same points is because that is what the argument is about, and that is what hasn't been disproven.
"God grant me the serenity to accept things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference."
User avatar
BleuPanda
Higher Ground
Posts: 4717
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 1:20 am
Location: Urbana, IL

Re: The Death of the Author

Post by BleuPanda »

But that isn't what the argument has been about; you keep speaking in definitive concepts, but if a single person simply disagrees with those concepts, they fall apart.

And I personally don't get more from looking at a film as a means of communication. Some films, sure, but other films are better off without that lens. Do you admit, then, that looking at Mad Max purely through a spectacle lens leaves people satisfied while looking at is as the system of a message does not?

My question, then, is why not watch a film in the more satisfying way? In my opinion, Mad Max as a spectacle is around the same level of quality as Tokyo Story is a narrative force. Meanwhile, if I flipped both and looked at Mad Max as a narrative piece and Tokyo Story as a spectacle, I would enjoy neither. But if my goal as someone who consumes media is to walk away satisfied, which is additionally the goal of its creation, why would I ever choose to watch a film in an unintended manner when there is a way that works better?

Which, once again looping back, is why Mad Max succeeds where films like Transformers fails. Mad Max works as a spectacle and Transformers doesn't due to issues of pacing and flawed character design. Transformers also doesn't work as a narrative piece, or a statement film, or through any other method of viewing film. The same could be said comparing Tokyo Story to The Room. Tokyo Story works as a narrative piece, The Room very clearly fails on every front. Both films were created to deliver a message, but The Room flops around so magnificently that nothing of value is ever communicated.

Would you trust someone who criticizes Tokyo Story for not having enough rhythmic editing and action sequences? Well, on the same coin, the people who like movies like Mad Max aren't going to listen to someone whose criticism is based in narrative and acting. Mad Max is speaking to one collective while your arguments are speaking to an entirely different crowd. But Mad Max isn't looking for the approval of everyone (though its high rating on Metacritic, TSDPT, IMDb, and being the picture from 2015 with the most Oscar wins proves it actually came near that anyway), it's looking for the approval of action fans. As someone who views films as a means of communication, Mad Max literally isn't intended for you. Which is fine; no film is made with everyone in mind. But when you criticize a film for doing what its genre has always done, and your main concerns have nothing to do with the staples of that genre, it becomes a question of who you're trying to speak to. Are you trying to convince action fans they shouldn't care about the biggest action film of the year? Then you're going to have to get within their terms, and therefore disprove the elements they care about. You don't disprove an action film's quality by tearing apart its narrative, you do so by breaking down the technique. If you're trying to communicate the flaws of Mad Max to people who don't enjoy action films; well, once again, what's the point? They already know they don't enjoy action films. And, yes, in regards to action films, I am only going to listen to people who have been proven to enjoy other action films; if someone believes all minimalist action films are bad, I cannot trust them to differentiate between what does and doesn't work in that genre. What I don't get is, why feel the need to express your disinterest in a particular genre so vehemently? Whose opinion are you going to sway when you aren't speaking in the terms of the film or intended audience at hand?

You also keep trying to compare things that I really don't understand. How is the technical innovation of creating the camera comparable to the cinematography of Mad Max? There's a difference between technical innovations and technique.
Nick
Running Up That Hill
Posts: 3115
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 9:28 pm
Location: New York State

Re: The Death of the Author

Post by Nick »

luney6 wrote: Maths is a study of patterns in nature. We say that 2 + 2 = 4, because, for example, in the past, whenever two apples and two apples have been put together, four apples have been obtained. If, one day, you started getting five apples, for whatever reason, dimensional, calculational, etc, it would be us who would be changing our function. Similarly, your opinion on whether or not a building will stand, is based on the fact that whenever these variables have been put together this way, the building has always stood. By logic, it is also notable that in the past, there was another variable that didn't effect the building, that will now. Hence, based on this, it will be logical for whoever is hiring you to assume, that the statement given by a bum on the street is as good as the design given by you. But the reason he hires you and not the bum is that you can 'argue' that the building in your design will stand. Does that make your take on whether or not the building will stand subjective? You said to my previous argument that 'if greatness can be argued it is not subjective'. This takes me back to my previous argument.
I feel like my statement "if greatness can be argued it is not subjective" is being taken a little out of context here. What I meant when I initially said that was in regards to "greatness" as a dimension of some work of art, in the same way that the length, width, and weight of a painting would also be dimensions of a work of art. Nobody would argue that a 6 foot long painting is really 3 feet long, for instance. Of course there are objective truths that can be argued, the pros and cons of two competing scientific theories can be debated for years. But when you're talking about "greatness" like it's some inherent property of a painting, in the same way that length or width or weight is, that's where I make my claim that "if greatness can be argued it is not subjective".
luney6 wrote:You also commented on the aesthetics of beauty. There, again, I disagree with you, as I say that something beautiful (or something pleasing, or something attractive) is completely subjective. Sure, you could use the golden ratio to find what most people would find beautiful, but even then, what I find beautiful or pleasing or attractive, will be different from what you find beautiful or pleasing or attractive, because that will not only be based on what my eyes find it to be, but also on my experiences, etc, etc. Basic example: If I had a childhood room that I really liked, that was red, I will find a red building more pleasing than a black one, whereas you may not.
I'm not sure why you think we disagree here, I agree with everything you're saying. Aesthetics, beauty, whatever, that's all subjective.
luney6 wrote:But art is about more than beauty, isn't it? If it was, then why isn't making love to a beautiful woman, who you find very attractive not art? It will be an act that is viscerally pleasing, and satisfying, right? Why isn't riding a roller coaster to obtain an adrenaline rush not art? Why watch Mad Max to do it, where you have to sit through two hours of the bad acting. Is a game of basketball art? If a guy lies down on the piano, and the noise that comes is recorded and sold, and someone likes it, would you say that it is at an equal level as a master playing Mozart?
If someone honestly believes that making love to a beautiful woman or riding a roller coaster is a work of performance art, who am I to say they're wrong? If someone honestly believes this hypothetical guy laying on a piano is better music than Mozart, then yes, they have a right to that opinion, and that opinion is not objectively wrong. I could argue why Mozart is better, but again, the true value of said argument lies not in what is being argued, but how strongly it is being argued.
luney6 wrote:I think (but am not sure) that the main difference lies in what we each believe to be the purpose of art. I say that art is a form of communication. Where science looks at the universe, and tries to figure it out, art looks at the universe through the human mind, asking why. You may say that is philosophy in motion. Art is not just about liking something viscerally.
But the strength of communication is entirely subjective. If the guy laying on the piano truly "communicates" more to me than the works of Mozart, am I wrong to feel that way?
User avatar
whuntva
Keep On Movin'
Posts: 1838
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 11:46 pm

Re: The Death of the Author

Post by whuntva »

I found a thinkpiece one of my friends did on this subject about a year ago.

The link at the top is dead, but my earlier post summarized some of its ideas.

http://puck1919.tumblr.com/post/1190770 ... the-author

If nothing else, pay attention to this sentence.
...[E]ven going in with set interpretations in my head, I couldn’t help but come up with my own ideas as to how to interpret characters actions.
This is probably my best definition of the concept. Even if the author has intents, it seems inevitable that we come to our own conclusions about the meaning of the work.

Again, I am not saying any interpretation is absolute, but all things should be considered, including the author's when trying to put the work into light for yourself.
" Ah, yes! Our meager restitution"
User avatar
luney6
Movin' On Up
Posts: 868
Joined: Sat May 31, 2014 8:50 pm

Re: The Death of the Author

Post by luney6 »

Nick wrote:I feel like my statement "if greatness can be argued it is not subjective" is being taken a little out of context here. What I meant when I initially said that was in regards to "greatness" as a dimension of some work of art, in the same way that the length, width, and weight of a painting would also be dimensions of a work of art. Nobody would argue that a 6 foot long painting is really 3 feet long, for instance. Of course there are objective truths that can be argued, the pros and cons of two competing scientific theories can be debated for years. But when you're talking about "greatness" like it's some inherent property of a painting, in the same way that length or width or weight is, that's where I make my claim that "if greatness can be argued it is not subjective".
To be honest, the length, width and the weight of a painting can also be argued. But I think I understand your point. What I was trying to say was, that simply because greatness can be argued doesn't make it not subjective. Also, if you say that the quality of a movie is decided by the strength of the argument going for it, then even that makes it sort of objective right? Other things BleuPanda noted, such as the proportion of people liking something to the proportion of not liking something are also all objective.

As for the statements about communication: If I say my name is Luney6, what would you say about someone who interprets it as a statement about good how the letters look together. Similarly, what would you say to someone who says that Fight Club is a movie with a message about going out and getting in a fight, or about how men don't need women. The author's intention makes no difference, but the viewers ability to unbiasedly interpret something does.
"If someone honestly believes that making love to a beautiful woman or riding a roller coaster is a work of performance art, who am I to say they're wrong?"
"And, no, none of those random things you listed are considered art for the simplest reason: they're not created with the intent of human expression."
(Is Mad Max created with the intent of human expression?)

These two statements are contradictory. Has one of you changed your mind?

Re: BleuPanda

My point is, that if you wish to watch a spectacle, you do not need the acting, the dialogues, etc, etc. Then why have them? FIlms like Terminator 2 have both. Aren't they films of greater quality? You can get the same adrenaline rush as you can get while watching Mad Max by riding a roller coaster, or going to the circus. Would you say that those are as great works of art? Or rather, since it's a spectacle, you might as well imagine a chase scene inside your head, and it could have the same impact. And the focus here is on the fact that you could have. Where does the artist fit in over here? What is the need for the movie when you could have felt that yourself. If the film had been directed by another director, using this same formula, would it not have had the same impact and quality? You can get the same satisfaction from a film like The Fast and the Furious. On other hand, with Tokyo Story, the director tells you things that you didn't already know, or couldn't have played in your mind yourself. It couldn't have been anyone but the director who communicated them.

I'm not stopping you or anyone from liking Mad Max (and never have I in the past). Neither do I think less of you for liking it, or declaring it to be one of your favorite films of all time. There is nothing wrong with liking it, and getting satisfaction from it. But I do believe that there is a difference between quality and liking something, the same way there is a difference between science and religion. I'm beginning to feel like (although I'm not at all sure) your definition of great art is based upon the intention of including everything you like under the same marquee, because of how your points are sometimes contradictory, and because that is exactly I used to do.

Finally:
To what extent does authorial intent effect the interpretation of the works? There are some who would say that it means everything. But consider this, in 2115, what will people think when they watch Age of Ultron? Will they recognize the name Joss Wheedon? Will they know of his other works? What if Joss Wheedon is almost erased from memory, aside from his works and a few tax forms? What would people, say, 400 years from know think of him? Probably the very same thing that we think of William Shakespeare– an artist who died some 400 years ago that left nothing but his works and some tax forms. There are some who claim that William Shakespeare is, in fact, William Shakespeare. There are some who claim he was the Earl of Oxford, or Lord Francis Bacon, or Christopher Marlowe, or even Queen Elizabeth! Perhaps in the future there will be a conspiracy that “Joss Wheedon” was just a pen name for Donald Trump. It could happen. But Shakespeare as an artist has come to experience something called “The Death of the Author”. Yes, his physical body has died, but Death of the Author is something entirely different, and has different interpretations. The best explanation I’ve seen is that when creating something, the author ceases to exist, and instead, becomes an abstract concept that is only used to discuss the works of that author. We can discuss Hamlet and Macbeth in terms of each other as Shakespeare plays, even though we do not know the character of Shakespeare himself. And in that, authorial intent ceases to be a factor. The fact that the name Hamlet is close to Hamnet, the name of Shakespeare’s son who died when he was 11, might even be a coincidence, and the story of how Hamlet was written in his memory might be a simple myth. Authorial intent has never stopped interpretation by scholars and non-scholars in any case– how many have written papers on the allegory for WWII that they saw in Lord of the Rings? How many have warned about the abusive relationships featured in The Twilight Saga and 50 Shades of Grey? Hell, how many Johnlock fics are out there??? Just because the author intended, or didn’t intend, for something to be there, doesn’t mean that the execution favored that interpretation.
This is exactly what I've been trying to say with regard to the death of the author theory. As time passes, all that will remain is the work of art, and nothing else.

Also, Avengers will not be as highly praised in the future as it is today, because the quality of the special effects will have dated badly. Tokyo Story, on the other hand, will still remain relevant.
"God grant me the serenity to accept things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference."
User avatar
BleuPanda
Higher Ground
Posts: 4717
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 1:20 am
Location: Urbana, IL

Re: The Death of the Author

Post by BleuPanda »

But my points aren't contradictory...
User avatar
BleuPanda
Higher Ground
Posts: 4717
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 1:20 am
Location: Urbana, IL

Re: The Death of the Author

Post by BleuPanda »

Actually, I'm going to repeat what I said earlier. This discussion is finished. Don't reply to what I've said, don't try to continue it in another direction. Using this forum has become actively stressful over these last few weeks because of you, and if you once again misconstrue what I have said, I really have no choice but to add you to my ignored user list.
User avatar
luney6
Movin' On Up
Posts: 868
Joined: Sat May 31, 2014 8:50 pm

Re: The Death of the Author

Post by luney6 »

BleuPanda wrote:Actually, I'm going to repeat what I said earlier. This discussion is finished. Don't reply to what I've said, don't try to continue it in another direction. Using this forum has become actively stressful over these last few weeks because of you, and if you once again misconstrue what I have said, I really have no choice but to add you to my ignored user list.
Sorry, again. It has become stressful for me too, but stress isn't something to avoid, but to resolve, IMO. If you don't wish to continue this discussion, no matter. You always had the option of not opening this thread anyways.
"God grant me the serenity to accept things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference."
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”