What sayst thou ?Quote:
Originally Posted by [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_fallacy
Printable View
What sayst thou ?Quote:
Originally Posted by [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_fallacy
But what you "cover" is vastly different (which is an understatement) from what the artist intends. Your whole life plays a part in it, and surely, you're going to see it differently. And one must not associate all this talk as a kind of mumbo-jumbo useful only when viewing obscure films. Hardly. Take the many mainstream films which we find awful or even offensive watching them through various prisms. Do those filmmakers intend to make a film that is, say, pro-casteist or anti-feminist? Are they consciously trying to make it that way? No, it's what we see in them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prabhu Ram
Pardon the simplistic logic (but good enough I think); if we can bash up a film for all the bad things we see in it, it's only fair we approve of the good things, no?
This is digressive but I will yield to it because it seems potentially enjoyable.
I think this takes the beholder thing too far. Most of the times it is what it is. adhuvE illainreengaLA.Quote:
Originally Posted by equanimus
Take anti-feminism a popular trend - or even fetish - in our films.
Do they intend to make an anti-feminist scene. Sure as hell they do. They don't think it is something to be queasy about. We react because we see it through our prism, granted but that does not take away that the creator "wanted" to have his hero cut a woman down to size. It didn't happen incidentally. Nor does there seem to be alternative ways of reading it.
That's why I believe the mass of the mainstream watch-and-ignore films/book which are as deep (uh oh ! baed word) as pAlAr in summertime can be brushed aside for this discussion.
Yes we never know for sure. Part of the reason why we devour information about the artist about and beyond his work. Most of the times the outcome is unpleasant. Yet, we (I ?) never learn.Quote:
Originally Posted by equanimus
All the time maintaining a schizophrenic adherence that I am not using the artist's 'life' to evaluate his art. Treating with scorn others' attempts to do when I am kind of doing precisely the same.
That we will never know for sure and is always in a position only to make reasonable, clever (?) guesses means we do harbour such a question.
KGB Officer: What do you think about Josef Stalin ?
Civilian: I think what you think Sir
KGB Officer: Then it is my duty to arrest you.
So, to actually make the remark is quite impolite and unfair. But can we banish the question from within us ? Should we just take the art and run and not bother disappointing ourselves ?
Or should adopt a 'real' worldview like a முற்போக்கு எழுத்தாளர்கள் சங்கம் pamphlet, which in a bid to say that artists don't exist in vacuum and must react to the society around them makes atrocious statements like: கலைஞர்களும் மனிதர்கள் தான். அவர்கள் ஒன்றும் வானத்திலிருந்து வந்து குதித்துவிடவில்லை.
Hmm...Quote:
Originally Posted by equanimus
We do approve of the good things. Has Goundamani acted in a single 'good' film ?
I don't think I got this.
It is what it is, PR, but still I am the one who is seeing it. The artist's consciousness is only incidental. Even with some of most literally constructed anti-feminist films, the maker might not have consciously thought of it to be so. What is literal to me is not literal to the maker. It could just be a reflection of his repressed sexuality. Or just a fetish of sorts. Obviously there's no clear line of difference. (What is consciousness anyway?) That's the equivalence I'm drawing between the unconscious layers in the creative process of bad films and good films.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prabhu Ram
And I didn't mean only the "literally constructed" anti-whatever films when I say mainstream films. What about the films in which the filmmaker doesn't consciously frame anything of that sort and is actually trying to make a sensitive film and all? There the consciousness is even more conflicting. Cheran's films for example. Are his films consciously chauvinist? (Let's just say I tell him that they are. What would be his reaction?) Probably not. Do I care? Hell, no. Some films just don't cut it for whatever reasons. Why? Is it because the filmmaker wants it to be so? No. Surely, Cheran wants his films to be sensitive? But to the viewer (that is, me), it makes no difference.
No. Not at all. But one has to be discerning enough when making such assumptions. Otherwise one will perhaps find someone else putting some sense into one's head. Let me take Bala again. Isn't it somewhat idiotic of us to condescend to his sensibilities, frankly? I am not bent on employing the "you never know" argument. Let's "get into the specifics" and try to find out what strikes us as "sophisticated" or "unsophisticated," even though such pointers never add up to give a complete picture, etc. Where does he come off as "unsophisticated?" I am not sure. So I'll skip that. Let me talk about the other side. He is quite well read. It's not like he started reading Jeyakanthan the day before he made 'pithAmagan.' (I can't of course put my finger on when he actually did, but I remember his writing in the AV series that he was a big fan of JK and how thrilled he was when he saw Jeyakanthan come to catch a preview of 'vIdu' when he was working under Balu Mahendra.) He has now adapted parts of Jeyamohan's 'EzhAm ulagam' for his latest film. How many of us have read the novel? Or even heard of it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Prabhu Ram
I do not know if you would call this intentional fallacy but here is my take on Bala's film. It is one of the interpretations that can be offered. I am not sure if Bala meant this but to me this is what I felt.
Read my views at http://sureshs65music.blogspot.com
I largely disagree with the claim that his consciousness is incidental.Quote:
Originally Posted by equanimus
I agree that sometimes things happen over and above the 'control' the creator claims to possess. But what draws us again to the artists works, what makes us expect his future works, what makes us seek unvisited past treasures all these are largely from what he consciously does. Don't you think so ?
How can I be so sure this how he intended I receive the works ? Well I can never be. In the context of mainstream average films, I can claim with some degree of arrogance, that the intention of the artist is guessable.
The multilayered lost in translation of a bad filmmaker is of lesser interest isn't it. I am not so convinced of the equivalence but I will wriggle out of that because I have already declared I am not gunning for consistency here.
His noble intention is not argument in itself. We judge the film regardless of that. Now let me tread the thin ice of judgement and go to anQuote:
Originally Posted by equanimus
oversimplified question.
Conceded that a filmmaker can (and will) be worse than he intends to be. Similarly he can better (though less likely) be better than he intends to be.
Good/Bad - subjective, beholder's evaluation of course.
But the question is whether I am applauding for the man who created it or a lucky coincidence he was a part of.
I am guessing your question is: "why do you care ?" Right ?
Hmm....kinda my question too. Perhaps credit to the artist implies possibility of such quality work from him to come. (Doesn't work for dead creators visited now).
Let me let a cat out of the bag. I had watched Sethu, made a mental note of the name Bala and moved on.I rewatched Sethu after I read an early interview of Bala. I assumed - or rather rightly inferred- someone who claimed to be enamoured by the writings of nAnjil nAdan and at the same time admitted to a youth using the word jaari to refer to girls, was someone worth following.Quote:
Originally Posted by equanimus
As if he was the only other guy who seemed to traversed the two seemingly different worlds.But to be fair to myself that was merely a starting point. Of course the films made cases for themselves.
Difficult to pinpoint. I will probably argue against every argument I make so I know any attempt at an answer is to set up a dtraw man. Let me put it this way. One of the better ways to judge an artist is to see what is the most irritatingly shallow thing that he has let pass in his film. If someone can create/write something of that sort and dare to affix his name to it then how good can he be.Quote:
Originally Posted by equanimus
I know this sort of weakest link, stringent scheme of things will blow up on my face. Perhaps I can give an example that may better explain where I am coming from. Taken by the hot air that blows around about Annadurai's reputedly good prose I picked up a novel of his when in college: Parvathy BA. That one novel was all I have ever read of his and I can vouch for the fact that he couldn't have produced as much as a line of any literary merit even if his life depended on it. Any writer worth his salt couldn't have done something as bad.
My respect for Bala's extremely good works coexists with doubts that spring from ordinary-ness of many of his sequences. And his reputation of meticulousness only adds to it because it means every frame is consicously (oops !) crafted. The reactions of the Kasi pandit family is an example and quality of acting in those scenes. I am NOT nitpicking. That is not my intention here. (That list would be longer :mrgreen:). I am only saying someone who can let that pass is someone who gives atleast a little ground to suspect his 'sophistication' (for want of a better word).
Of course there are several problems with the analogy between a dabbA novel and a popular filmmaker. Money, creative control, mani-ramani teamwork and all. But this more an attempt at rationalization than something clearly driven by cold logic.
I'm not sure if you got what I meant, I am saying that the artist being conscious of something is incidental for the audience. That of course does not automatically mean the merit of the artist's work is itself incidental. Just because the artist is not consciously aware of something, it doesn't make his or her works just arbitrary, surely? As with anyone else, there are inevitably subconscious layers in the artist's mind too, isn't it? (By the way, I should have said "subconscious layers" there, not "unconscious!") It seems to me that you're bordering on drawing a binary distinction between "conscious" and "arbitrary" here, as if to suggest, either the artist has to be consciously aware of what he is doing, or else he is just arbitrarily making something which happens to be a good film.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prabhu Ram
Of course, it is true (to different degrees) that "all these are largely from what he consciously does." With emphasis on the word 'largely.' It only means that he is only so much consciously aware of what he is doing and might actually not have a very good sense of the magnitude of his work.
Yes, and well, I don't think there's any need to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prabhu Ram
Yeah, here, I agree with you. Yes it is easily guessable, but yet we all do see so many other things as well, don't we?Quote:
Originally Posted by Prabhu Ram
This is where, I think, you're being reductive of the creative process of the Artist. It's not mere lucky coincidence just because he's not consciously aware of all that he has accomplished, the way I see it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prabhu Ram
I think now we're talking along parallel lines. My point was only about how easily we condescend to the personal sensibilities of filmmakers in general. I'm not making an exclusive case for Bala here. I talked about some arbitrary "specifics" of Bala just to take a few steps back and see where we stand in comparison. That's all. This is true for a Mani Ratnam as well. I find many parts of his films quite ordinary too. But I can't bring myself to patronise him as unsophisticated on these grounds. Why are we talking about filmmakers we like so much? I'm saying it's silly to patronise even the ones we don't think much of. The next time I condescend to Gautham's sensibilities, somebody please spank me!Quote:
Originally Posted by Prabhu Ram
It's not like I think Bala's films are flawless. Far from it, as I often clarify when I talk about his films. For instance, none of his films are as even as as the great 'kAdhal,' as far as I'm concerned. But nevertheless, he's a fantastic filmmaker in my books.
As for such ordinary patches/pieces/films/phases, I don't even feel the need to rationalise really. It might just not work out. That's how (or as much) I try to understand. For instance, I think 'nAn kadavuL' fails at some levels (though I also think it's a tremendous accomplishment in other ways). To me, it didn't seem to be because of any "commercial compromises" at all. For that matter, I can't for my life understand how Kamal came to write a film like 'dasAvathAram.' It happens. oNNum seyyaRadhukku illai.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prabhu Ram
Forgive me for possibly redirecing the conversation towards NK but here is an excerpt from Jeyamohan's article:
The bolded part in specific implies one of two things:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeyamohan
1. Audience awareness of what a 'BAlA' film entails.
2. Audience awareness of the typical constraints of a thamizh film.
This throws another wrench in the works. Every work of art depends on the purveyor to be at a certain level 'preparedness'. For example it seems to me to understand Dostoevsky's impact one would need to be aware of, if not familiar with, Gogol and his depictions of St.Petersburg (Must thank you for that book btw PR. The introduction to the collection provided an excellent 'chronological progression' of Russian Lit.). What does one make of this 'pre-requisite' to art appreciation?
Ok. ippo purinch.Quote:
Originally Posted by equanimus
This is also a 'binary'. Knowledge of the intention sometimes (often) enhances the experience of the viewer. Never 'ndgreengaLA ?Quote:
Originally Posted by equanimus
Surely you would agree acquaintance with alternative perspectives of others sometimes leads better appreciation of the work. This is true when the 'other' is just a somebody hazarding a guess. So it as much, if not even more, true when that somebody happens to be the author himself.
In one frustrating experience for RKNarayan recounts when filming the "Guide" is one about location choice. When he heard they were scouting for locations in North India he had an argument with the Exec Producer who stumped RKN with the response : "besides, how do you know where Malgudi is ?"
Well I was admittedly being a little polemical but I am a little discomfort when there is seems to be a 'risk' that what I enjoy may be an attribute of the creation but perhaps not that of the creator. Why feel uncomfortable at all is a fair question.Quote:
Originally Posted by equanimus
In some ways that is what is worrying. Isn't it. When Kamal is making Dasavatharam we know he is not writing with "all that he has". And when he laughs all the way to the bank that is pretty much its own scary argument. But with NK - Bala is indeed writing with all he has (now, from where do we get such notions !). That is why the chinks are held up for disproportionate scrutiny and doubt.Quote:
To me, it didn't seem to be because of any "commercial compromises" at all.
My claim 1: Bala probably has no idea how great his films are because he is just good and not conscious of the art/craft aspects.Quote:
Originally Posted by Plum
Answer 1: That is of no concern. All that matters is the film. Pudding matters not the chef (something I clearly agree with in another context)
Answer 2: Snooty of you to doubt Bala when on the other hand.... (Yes,
guilty as charged)
All said and done, when Bala seems to make my claim wobble it makes me glad and this has got nothing to do with his film. So when he makes a statement like "one fails when one tries to prove", I take it as an extremely profound statement about art itself which reveals a certain degree of consciousness about art and craft which thrills me.
The struggle is to keep all this out when judging the work. True. But that does not mean I will just look away and refuse to be impressed by the artist himself. Why not ? I say.
oru maadhiri theLivA kuzhappurEnA ?
Ok, got what you are saying.
In a way, I always think of how posterity can judge a work - that will be contextless and independent of the author, right? What happens if we judge one of Bharathiyar's particular work on his patriotic songs bereft of the context, as many in the next generation(or even current) sure will?
Heck, even as I prepare to submit this comment, I find compli has already made this point.
No, I had said that specifically in response to the quoted line in your post. There's no need to be sure about how he intended I receive the works. But in general, it's indeed very valuable to know what the artist had in mind even when if he's simply going to say, "well I thought it looked good," or, "please don't bother me."Quote:
Originally Posted by Prabhu Ram
Yes, completely agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prabhu Ram
No, actually I gave 'dasAvathAram' as a far better (or should I say worse?) example, in that I just can't come to terms with the sloppy writing for whatever reasons. I can see that Kamal didn't mean to write it with all that he has, but surely, all of it was not about Kamal laughing all the way to the bank? The musings on God, religion and what not, nothing worked for me. I think it failed on all fronts. (I'm able to brush it all aside easily because I didn't expect much out of it to begin with.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Prabhu Ram
For all my bits of disappointment about the failures of 'nAn kadavuL,' I think it's a stellar film.
I've posted whatever I had typed in as my response back then... so that we can continue from where we left. :)
ஆமாம், ஆமாம்!Quote:
Originally Posted by P_R
By the way, I'm not sure where we stand now. So let me put forth a statement.
There are many qualities that spill on a work of art without the artist being conscious of it. Do you think this makes the work of art any less praiseworthy?
Thanks...was thinking about this (yet again) yesterday. Here are some latest exceprts from the stream of consciousness :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by equanimus
I think it is important to make a distinction between art forms. Cooking - for instance. I am not being frivolous - it is not for nothing that it is one of thee aayar kalaigaL aRubathinaangu.
There I don't care about the intention/design etc. I purely taste the final product. The proportion achieved by the cooker - Crazy vaazhga- could have been completely incidental. And the applause misplaced <which is somehow at the foundation of my 'art appreciation in general>. But we don't actually care.
Now I tried extending it to music. For example the 'mathematical' perfection
I mentioned to Plum in a PM - that I don't get what it means for a BGM to be 'appropriate' because music - by the very nature of what it is - cannot help being larger than life. Every user slices the cake as he sees fit. Since last evening, I have the reasonable conviction that the duet between the mridangam and violin in 'I met Bach in my House' is the greatest piece of music I have ever heard. I am not at all uncomfortable about the fact that this may suggest different emotions to different listeners. Each may appreciate it for different memories of emotions and associations (akin to your point of 'our whole life rallies behind us at the moment at which we consume a piece of art'). I know for certain that IR and his musicians - know nothing about 'how' I am going to like it. I am not at all fluttered by this.
Now, this may also be because I don't slot myself as a nuanced listener of music. I have taken it upon myself to become the Prof.Higgins to my own Eliza about it this year, that's another story.
I suppose some musical(ly nuanced listeners) appreciates the mathematical perfection in the song, will he be itching to know if IR achieved it consciously or not. (After all, as Poisson once said: music is the pleasure the human mind gets out of counting without actually knowing it). If IR were to reply a la ThiruviLayAdal siVaji : summA kaththunEn (i.e. not the humility - that I guess would be beyond him and anyway irrelevant to our discussion- just the lack of consciousness of the monstrous brilliance of his creation) then would the musical be a tad heartbroken or even more baffled by the 'natural' genius.
Could be either way.
This is all because of the inherent 'form' of the art. In music there is no 'meaning' independent of the form. If the math of the synchronoicity can be deemed 'meaning' over and above the creation then it is for musicals to say (there is a lovely scene in MogamuL where Ranganna and Babu listen to the perfection of unplayed music !)
OTOH In literature - I find it very difficult to digest. The writer is doing more than arranging syllables to achieve highest aesthetic appeal from the arrangement. There is a 'meaning' <not sure if that is the right word> coming out of the of the form that makes it appealing. Not to say the arrangement of syllables isn't inherently enticing (eg. aruNagirinAthAr) but the appeal rises beyond that.
I can at best acknowledge that the creator cannot fully guess how he will be received. But if the creator's intent is 'lost' and the reader's 'principal reading experience' was far removed from the author's intent - then the disappointment is highly justified.
This whole 'author is dead' movement has gone too far. If Vijay Anand can ask R.K.Narayan 'how do you know where Malgudi is ?' then amends need to be made.
Many parts of this essay are germane to the discussion at hand
http://www.jeyamohan.in/?p=6241
Here is a last paragraph I didn't post yesterday because I didn't want to aathify too much tea in weekend emptied shop in one day
__________________________________________
Will reveal another reason why I am annoyed. I dismiss most of current Tamil short story writing <the only form I persist reading>. When the half-baked attempts are passed of as if 'there is something in there' I have just given up on a perhaps-its-beyond-me politeness. i.e 'there is something the reader should bring to the table' and I came with just fork and spoon. But then on repeating reading and <horrors> reading the author's thiruvaai-malarndharuLal in intrees - I am at ease. I 'know' there is nothing in those stories which I didn't get.
Now, that has become the standard. That you can let go on creative control and just be. And that sweatless scrawl can go on to be called 'art' is just annoying. And the foundation of all this is the contention that the 'author is dead' and each reader will have his reading (with the author subtly beaming that his text was open enough to permit the varied reading experiences - I keep thinking of the inkblot joke).
Of what little I read, the creative control of oldies like aadhavan or asOkamitran - is something to bow to. And no-one is even striving in that direction because now it is 'easy' to become an artist.
P_R - enjoyed the posts but I really dont have much to say.
I don't think so. I'm only halfway through reading it, but reading parts of it and your post, it looks like we're going in many directions here. Firstly, as I see it, this is not particularly about the "the author is dead" movement. (Where I come from, not at all.) I'm not even familiar with it, nor have read Roland Barthes's related essay. (It's ironic that even some of the naysayers of the excesses of postmodernism tend to attribute many older ideas to the movement.) Why, long before Barthes, D. H. Lawrence said, "never trust the teller, trust the tale."Quote:
Originally Posted by P_R
I think many of your concerns, if not all, are related to the 'negation' of an artist's vision/work by moving the focus on the reader and thus rendering several possible readings, many of which might not have anything at all to do with the work. But there's a lot of difference between this and what we're discussing. Just because I do "not trust the teller," it doesn't in any way mean that I'm inclined to trust the 'democracy' of readers. The best evidence is in the work itself. Of course, this means there's no central consensus on the said work, which is as it should be.
As I said before, to me, the qualities that spill on an artist's work without his/her being conscious of it are too significant to be disregarded or even treated as any less praiseworthy. In Jeyamohan-speak, the artist's nuNNuNarvu is very crucial. A good artist makes certain leaps to challenge oneself (including those purely concerned with form) without even being aware of it. If a reader asked, "why did you do it?" the writer might say, "I don't know, it just happened." But that's not reason enough to be backhanded in one's praise, or worse, take the writer's response at face value and believe that it's simply incidental.
Oh, yes, I agree with this. But even here, I guess the conclusions I draw are different.Quote:
Originally Posted by P_R
I agree with you to the extent that I think the greatness of a piece of music has nothing to do with the emotions that it elicits in us human beings. To put it in more radical terms, I consider Music as an art form that expressly appeals to our senses and doesn't concern itself with the human condition (here, I'm alluding to Schopenhauer who considered it to be the best form of human artistry for this reason). I think, at a subconscious level, I even desist associating various emotions to compositions.Quote:
Originally Posted by P_R
I'm not a 'musical' in any sense of word, but it's the latter in my case. And, being a purely abstract form of art, I think the role of nuNNuNarvu -- the intuitive 'leap' to challenge oneself -- is even greater in music.Quote:
Originally Posted by P_R
To put it very broadly, I think the appeal is life itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by P_R
But in these cases, the problem is because the reading of the work is vague or simply ridiculous. As I see it, the idea that the reader doesn't have to depend on the author's intentions has nothing to do with it. Note that, even in practical terms, if a reader wants to read about/better understand an artist's work, much of what's readily available to him is not written by the respective artists, but by someone else. This is not only a mundane point (though I think that itself is important enough), but in a philosophical sense, this has never been the ‘artist's’ interest.Quote:
Originally Posted by P_R
What is the 'intention' of this thread?
d) Whatever works. :roll:Quote:
Does the intention of the artist matter
a) Always
b) Never
c) It depends
I've to admit that I'm a complete ignoramus on this front. But I've read some of the postmodern critiques in Tamil lit. world that Jeyamohan complains of. So I do see what you mean. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by P_R
kid-glove,Quote:
Originally Posted by kid-glove
Just curious, how is it different from "It depends" (which is what I think I'd choose if forced to)?
remba length-A pOyitturukka. vaNdi OttaNum.
vandhu padikkarEn.
To cut short a futile debate, let's just say I didn't get the full intent of choice c)Quote:
Originally Posted by equanimus
'Whatever works' (to the reader) sounds open, personal and invariably irrational (:P) to resort to.
'It depends' sounds like the creation determines the importance of 'intention' through tangible factors, and not the reader.
Oh! I saw "it depends" as an ambivalent answer suggesting that it depends on many things, not as "it depends on the work." :)Quote:
Originally Posted by kid-glove
:)Quote:
Originally Posted by kid-glove
equa, as I said, unlike others, the problem I have found with your writing is that you write less, not more. It leaves room for ambiguity. Although people complain about your posts being lengthy, what I really found difficult is to read the right meaning between the lines :-)
To be honest, Plum, I don't think Equa's writing is at fault in this case. I hadn't got the third options in the poll. :) But I believe you're talking of his writing in general. I agree that Equa's style leaves room for further debate. From my experience, the discourse might not get anywhere in the end, in terms of changing actual status quo, but in many ways, the proponent gets reassured of where he/she stands. If they don't, they get the Equanimatic vision and change ways. :noteeth:
Actually I find equar quite comprehensible, slightly well packed - which is part of the appea.
Thilaquer -to use Sujatha's words- படம் வரைந்து பாகங்கள் குறித்து புரிந்து கொள்வேன். :P
:exactly:Quote:
Originally Posted by P_R
But if you adichu-uttufy or have insufficient backing, he is sure to pin it down. although his debating technique is straight-forward and linear, the opinions are *rooted* so much to the persons involved. Unyielding aside (naturally because one's life experience determine their stance in any issue/debate) if the proponent's idea is muddled or unclear, Equa strikes back till one gets it right and/or he challenges it with counter-points. He is sure to ask for evidence and reasons, lot of people don't react well to it. Adhan 'leaves room for further debate'-nu sonnen. Not 'leaves room for ambiguity'. :P
Equa, I breathe relief in the dismissal of the democracy of readings. I guess the preservation of elitism is at the core of this issue for me - if everyone can have it, then let no-one have it. :lol2:
I struggle with this. That we see it is enough to define its existence ?Quote:
Originally Posted by equanimus
Hmm.... I also meant (though not exclusively) the emotion felt when listening to the music. This can be without reference to other experiences/memories. Invariably it is for me the memory of the strongest 'listening experience' that keeps getting revisited each time I listen.Quote:
Originally Posted by equanimus
Ok...I think we need an example. Just so we understand better what this leap is. From film ?Quote:
Originally Posted by equanimus
being understood ? For every artist I would say that would be like a burning passion for an extra-marital affair. Something he is consumed by but cannot quite talk about. Heck, the glow that 'understanding' gives even non-artists is tremendous.Quote:
Originally Posted by equanimus
One of my story ideas (here goes another novel - Balzac) was about an old writer who has plenty of writings, which is in-his-opinion, are scintillating but are lost on the public. And the only novel that he is appreciated, revered for and which has become his public identity is one that he plagiarized.
As this did not have a beginning-middle-end, principal conflict to be resolved etc. it threatened to take a plotless postmodern shape. So I nipped the idea in the bud :-)
How come ? Isn't the definition of 'ridiculousness' of the reading all about 'distance' from the intent ? Or two completely divergent but equally 'good' readings are possible. In which case the creator is a 'facilitator' of possible readings ? (I guess this will become clearer with the nuNNuNarvu example)Quote:
Originally Posted by equanimus
Fair point, Equa. Enakku piditha Kalaignar oruthar,Quote:
Originally Posted by Equanimus
Quote:
Characteristically, talking to Danny Plotnick in 1994 about the option of giving lectures, the idea of sharing his views on filmmaking or explaining his aesthetics does not even enter his mind: “I think I would throw together a bunch of disconnected things. Talk a little bit about films I liked or experiences I’ve had or anecdotes that aren’t related to film at all or maybe read a couple poems that I like.”
[tscii]Fair point, P_R. AdhE manushan,Quote:
Originally Posted by P_R
Quote:
regards other people’s different interpretations of them to be at least as valuable as his own, and is afraid that his own reflections would only impose.
"Extreme politeness" is the first reaction.Quote:
Originally Posted by kid-glove
Even if I try hard to believe that statement was genuinely meant - I am kinda stumped why someone would want their work read even if one is not being read.