View Poll Results: Does the intention of the artist matter

Voters
4. You may not vote on this poll
  • Always

    1 25.00%
  • Never

    1 25.00%
  • It depends

    2 50.00%
Page 1 of 11 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 101

Thread: Intentional Fallacy

  1. #1
    Moderator Platinum Hubber P_R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    10,036
    Post Thanks / Like

    Intentional Fallacy

    Quote Originally Posted by [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_fallacy
    wikipedia[/url]]Intentional fallacy, in literary criticism, addresses the assumption that the meaning intended by the author of a literary work is of primary importance. By characterizing this assumption as a "fallacy," a critic suggests that the author's intention is not important. The term is an important principle of New Criticism and was first used by W.K. Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley in their essay "The Intentional Fallacy" (1946 rev. 1954): "the design or intention of the author is neither available nor desirable as a standard for judging the success of a work of literary art." The phrase "intentional fallacy" is somewhat ambiguous, but it means "a fallacy about intent" and not "a fallacy committed on purpose."
    What sayst thou ?
    மூவா? முதல்வா! இனியெம்மைச் சோரேலே

  2. # ADS
    Circuit advertisement
    Join Date
    Always
    Posts
    Many
     

  3. #2
    Senior Member Seasoned Hubber
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,654
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Prabhu Ram
    But at the bare minimum, as a rasikan, I feel an anxiety to have covered, at the least, what the artist 'intended' to offer.
    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.

    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?

  4. #3
    Moderator Platinum Hubber P_R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    10,036
    Post Thanks / Like
    This is digressive but I will yield to it because it seems potentially enjoyable.
    Quote Originally Posted by equanimus
    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.
    I think this takes the beholder thing too far. Most of the times it is what it is. adhuvE illainreengaLA.

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by equanimus
    I'm saying one knows close to nothing about the personal sensibilities of these filmmakers (whether it is Bala or Mani Ratnam) even when one's trying to guess whether or not it's "appropriate" to make such a remark! That is all
    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.
    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.
    மூவா? முதல்வா! இனியெம்மைச் சோரேலே

  5. #4
    Moderator Platinum Hubber P_R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    10,036
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by equanimus
    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?
    Hmm...
    We do approve of the good things. Has Goundamani acted in a single 'good' film ?

    I don't think I got this.
    மூவா? முதல்வா! இனியெம்மைச் சோரேலே

  6. #5
    Senior Member Seasoned Hubber
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,654
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Prabhu Ram
    Quote Originally Posted by equanimus
    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.
    I think this takes the beholder thing too far. Most of the times it is what it is. adhuvE illainreengaLA.

    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.
    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.

    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.

  7. #6
    Senior Member Seasoned Hubber
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,654
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Prabhu Ram
    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 ?
    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?

  8. #7
    Senior Member Veteran Hubber
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    2,941
    Post Thanks / Like
    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

  9. #8
    Moderator Platinum Hubber P_R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    10,036
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by equanimus
    The artist's consciousness is only incidental.

    (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
    I largely disagree with the claim that his consciousness is incidental.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by equanimus
    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.
    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 an
    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).
    மூவா? முதல்வா! இனியெம்மைச் சோரேலே

  10. #9
    Moderator Platinum Hubber P_R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    10,036
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by equanimus
    He is quite well read. It's not like he started reading Jeyakanthan the day before he made 'pithAmagan.'
    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.

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by equanimus
    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.
    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.

    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 ). 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.
    மூவா? முதல்வா! இனியெம்மைச் சோரேலே

  11. #10
    Senior Member Seasoned Hubber
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,654
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Prabhu Ram
    Quote Originally Posted by equanimus
    The artist's consciousness is only incidental.

    (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
    I largely disagree with the claim that his consciousness is incidental.
    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 ?
    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.
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Prabhu Ram
    How can I be so sure this how he intended I receive the works ? Well I can never be.
    Yes, and well, I don't think there's any need to.
    Quote Originally Posted by Prabhu Ram
    In the context of mainstream average films, I can claim with some degree of arrogance, that the intention of the artist is guessable.
    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
    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.
    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.

Page 1 of 11 123 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •