Sometimes a Cigar is Just a Cigar

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

We all know literature means more than what it explicitly says. Symbolism, metaphor, any number of different literary techniques are indicative of this. And we also know that most good literature utilizes these to great affect. Moby Dick, Tom Sawyer, Ulysses, The Catcher in the Rye, and Heart of Darkness are just a very few that come immediately to mind.

But, sometimes, when I hear interpretations of literature (or, a certain aspect of a piece of literature), it makes me think, really? You really think the author meant to make a bold statement about life/death/politics/race-relations because he used that certain word or phrase? Sometimes I think we put more meaning into a text than the author originally intended. Not that there's anything wrong with that, it just seems that way sometimes.

Here's an example. When I read the intro to Moby Dick, the writer of it said that one fifth of the story takes place on land and that this is because one fifth of Earth's surface area is land. This made me ask, really? You really think Melville divided the story in that particular way just for that reason? Maybe he's correct, but I would definitely say that was probably more coincidence than anything.

So, what about you? What interpretations have you come across that made you roll your eyes?

[kelby_lake]

We all know literature means more than what it explicitly says. Symbolism, metaphor, any number of different literary techniques are indicative of this. And we also know that most good literature utilizes these to great affect. Moby Dick, Tom Sawyer, Ulysses, The Catcher in the Rye, and Heart of Darkness are just a very few that come immediately to mind.

But, sometimes, when I hear interpretations of literature (or, a certain aspect of a piece of literature), it makes me think, really? You really think the author meant to make a bold statement about life/death/politics/race-relations because he used that certain word or phrase? Sometimes I think we put more meaning into a text than the author originally intended. Not that there's anything wrong with that, it just seems that way sometimes.

Here's an example. When I read the intro to Moby Dick, the writer of it said that one fifth of the story takes place on land and that this is because one fifth of Earth's surface area is land. This made me ask, really? You really think Melville divided the story in that particular way just for that reason? Maybe he's correct, but I would definitely say that was probably more coincidence than anything.

So, what about you? What interpretations have you come across that made you roll your eyes?


http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=51136&highlight=interpretations

[kiki1982]

And sometimes a cigar is more than a cigar... :D

No, seriously, I think there should be a foundation upon which such a presumption is based. I mean, claiming that the cigar, for example, is a phalic symbol on the sole basis that it looks like one, is a bit odd, it does not really add anything. I have rolled my eyes in Dutch lit uni classes about that. The Germans seemed to be more pragmatic and realistic in their desire for interpretation, also taking into account the historical context, I discovered. The Dutch speaking lit world, though, would presume something like the one you said about Moby Dick.

I tend to think that a metaphor is of some importance and can be interpreted if there is a clear line in the story to follow that has a purpose, that puts a spin on things. And mostly it can then be connected to something else as well that is consistent with the overall impression of that story. If it stands loose from anything connected with the story, then it is to me, a bit b*ll*cks. Sorry.

But I gather there are other opinions about that...

[LitNetIsGreat]

You really think the author meant to make a bold statement about life/death/politics/race-relations because he used that certain word or phrase?

Well firstly I think we have to be careful regarding author intention. In many respects it's not about what the author intended, but rather the effects produced on the reader/viewer that really matters. What effect does that art have on me and why? should really be the question, not what did the author intend? Of course it is not always as simple as that but it would always be my starting point.

So for example in the point given regarding Moby Dick, I would say that it doesn't ultimately matter if it was Melville's intention to include 1/5 of the action of the text on land to represent the same proportion of land/sea in real life, but what, if anything, does this bring to the novel? What, if anything, can we say about this?

From this point I feel that readers/viewers/critics are free to argue whatever they like and try to support that argument however they will. This can often lead to points we may or may not agree with and that's fine, but at least it opens up the art for discussion to be supported or dismissed either way. Personally I'm all for opening up the art and bringing something new to the table, bringing a fresh perspective, even if we don't agree with it, for me it is nearly always a good thing even if we disagree wholly or partially with what is being said.

[Desolation]

In the very brief time that I have so far spent sharing my writings with other and listening to critiques, I have already heard several people go off on long tangents about what my stories "mean" that have just left me utterly perplexed. I spoke to one of my closest friends about this, and he told me that "Once an artist puts their art out there, it ceases to belong to them. It belongs to the viewer/reader/listener/whatever." And I think there's a lot of truth to this. Sure, it's interesting to think about what the author actually intended, but I think that it's kind of irrelevant after a certain point. What matters when you're studying something is what YOU got out of it, not what the author meant to portray. In fact, it kind of bothers me when an artist or author goes out of their way to call the interpretations of others incorrect. Like Ray Bradbury insisting that Fahrenheit 451 is absolutely NOT about censorship. It kills the mystique and the beauty of art, I think. There are exceptions, of course, like when an author needs to defend their work against some sort of negative connotation.

That said, I've heard a lot of critiques and interpretations of various works that are just ridiculous. For instance, hearing people discuss all the hidden meanings of Bob Dylan lyrics can be really irritating.

[OrphanPip]

Flannery O'Connor apparently used to do that as well, she used to write long letters to English professors and reviewers telling them their interpretations were wrong.

[Desolation]

See, I find that kind of thing ridiculous. Unless a figure like Adolf Hitler is claiming that your writings are in favor of their cause when they are decidedly not, I find telling people that their interpretations are "wrong" is in bad taste.

Anyways, I would think that given the proud outcast status of a lot of writers, they would relish in the glory of being oh so misunderstood. :p

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Very interesting points, Neely.



So for example in the point given regarding Moby Dick, I would say that it doesn't ultimately matter if it was Melville's intention to include 1/5 of the action of the text on land to represent the same proportion of land/sea in real life, but what, if anything, does this bring to the novel? What, if anything, can we say about this?

And maybe this is why I rolled my eyes at the assertion that it was more than coincedence, because, and someone can argue this if they want, but it really adds nothing. Whereas when someone tells you about all the things the white whale could represent you think, wow, that is pretty interesting, the 1/5th tidbit adds nothing, other than Melville may have been extremely meticulous.


In the very brief time that I have so far spent sharing my writings with other and listening to critiques, I have already heard several people go off on long tangents about what my stories "mean" that have just left me utterly perplexed. I spoke to one of my closest friends about this, and he told me that "Once an artist puts their art out there, it ceases to belong to them. It belongs to the viewer/reader/listener/whatever." And I think there's a lot of truth to this. Sure, it's interesting to think about what the author actually intended, but I think that it's kind of irrelevant after a certain point. What matters when you're studying something is what YOU got out of it, not what the author meant to portray. In fact, it kind of bothers me when an artist or author goes out of their way to call the interpretations of others incorrect. Like Ray Bradbury insisting that Fahrenheit 451 is absolutely NOT about censorship. It kills the mystique and the beauty of art, I think. There are exceptions, of course, like when an author needs to defend their work against some sort of negative connotation.

I haven't written a ton, but when I do, I love hearing the interpretations. I wrote a short story recently, and my friend got something totally different out of it than what I intended, but his interpretation was sound as when I looked at it through his eyes, his interpretation was totally justified, and possibly even more so than my intended one.

Sometimes it's tempting to say, "No, I meant this," but I usually don't. Like Desolation said, unless someone thinks I'm saying something that goes against my morals (something racist, or the like), I let it go. If the reader gets anything out of it at all is enough for me.

P.S. Thanks for the link, Kelby, especially since I participated in it, :lol:.

[LitNetIsGreat]

See, I find that kind of thing ridiculous. I find telling people that their interpretations are "wrong" is in bad taste.


I agree. It is not only ridiculous and in bad taste but it is also quite misguided.

[stlukesguild]

Harold Bloom suggested that the closing sentence from Oscar Wilde's Preface to The Picture of Dorian Gray (All art is quite useless) be engraved over the entrance ways to universities and colleges. Actually the entire preface is an astoundingly astute bit of critical commentary. Relevant to the discussion at hand I think the following excerpts are quite à propos:

The artist is the creator of beautiful things.

The critic is he who can translate into another manner or a new material his impression of beautiful things.

The highest as the lowest form of criticism is a mode of autobiography.

Those who find ugly meanings in beautiful things are corrupt without being charming. This is a fault.

Those who find beautiful meanings in beautiful things are the cultivated. For these there is hope.

They are the elect to whom beautiful things mean only beauty.

All art is at once surface and symbol.

Those who go beneath the surface do so at their peril.

Those who read the symbol do so at their peril.

It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors.

Criticism is a form of art in and of itself. Like all artists, some critics are better than others. As Wilde suggests, most criticism is a form of "autobiography"... revealing (or mirroring) the critic more than the artist criticized.

Certainly, there are examples when an artist has employed a clear and obvious symbolism... of a cigar being something more than a cigar. Dante's use of numbers is quite intentional: his choice of terza rima, 33 cantos, and a books place repeated emphasis upon the number three (trinity). In other instances the symbolism is less clear... less iconographic. Is Moby Dick's Ahab a personification of Satan... ala Milton... raging against the insurmountable power of Nature/God of the great white whale? That is a possible intention. And then is Cormac McCarthy's great albino Judge Holden from Blood Meridian something of a merger of Satan... and the whale? Again... this is a possibility. The authors may even have thought of these and other possible meanings... or then again, they may not have. A good many artists gladly embrace the old aphorism, "God doesn't stood to engage in debates of theology."

Whatever the case, it is largely naive to presume that art doesn't make frequent use of symbolism, nor that there aren't deeper "meanings" to be unearthed from a close reading of a work of literature. Quite too often, this is simply the complaint of the inexperienced student who cannot read at a deeper level. What's the other aphorism? "Some people can read War and Peace and come away thinking it's a simple adventure story. Others can read the ingredients on a chewing gum wrapper and unlock the secrets of the universe." (the character Lex Luthor from Superman).

Where the student makes the mistake imaging that the "cigar is always just a cigar", teachers and critics can forget that while the cigar is sometimes more than a cigar, it's not always a penis. In other words... there are more than one possible interpretation of most works of art. Some interpretations are better than others and certainly some are pure crap... but no work of art of any real merit can be reduced to a single "meaning". It is this realization that makes great books worth reading again and again... for the simple reason that as we grow older... as we gain new experiences... as we change... so too does our interpretation of these books.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Hahahahahahahahahaha. You said "penis."

(Just playing the high school student.)

[Alexander III]

"Harold Bloom suggested that the closing sentence from Oscar Wilde's Preface to The Picture of Dorian Gray (All art is quite useless) be engraved over the entrance ways to universities and colleges."


My god ! My admiration for Bloom has just increased twofold!

[Desolation]

Where the student makes the mistake imaging that the "cigar is always just a cigar", teachers and critics can forget that while the cigar is sometimes more than a cigar, it's not always a penis. In other words... there are more than one possible interpretation of most works of art. Some interpretations are better than others and certainly some are pure crap... but no work of art of any real merit can be reduced to a single "meaning". It is this realization that makes great books worth reading again and again... for the simple reason that as we grow older... as we gain new experiences... as we change... so too does our interpretation of these books.

:iagree:

[Alexander III]

The thing is: that even in real life a cigar is never just a cigar.

You see a man smoking a cigar and the cigar has unconscious connotations, which in our mind affect our judgment of him and reality. A cigar is seen as a luxury greater than cigarets, we may see him as rich, it also implies he is a man of influence and success. This is a feeble descriptive attempt by me at what goes on in the brain when we see him smoking a cigar. Millions of different connotations and memories are attached to that cigar and these alter the reality of the situation, of our perception and of ourselves. So a cigar is never a cigar - especially in real life.

[LitNetIsGreat]

"Harold Bloom suggested that the closing sentence from Oscar Wilde's Preface to The Picture of Dorian Gray (All art is quite useless) be engraved over the entrance ways to universities and colleges."


My god ! My admiration for Bloom has just increased twofold!

Yes Bloom is a big Wilde fan.

I actually think that the Preface to Dorian Gray be engraved over the entrance ways to all buildings, never mind universities and colleges. Boy what a world that would be!

[Drkshadow03]

And maybe this is why I rolled my eyes at the assertion that it was more than coincedence, because, and someone can argue this if they want, but it really adds nothing. Whereas when someone tells you about all the things the white whale could represent you think, wow, that is pretty interesting, the 1/5th tidbit adds nothing, other than Melville may have been extremely meticulous.




Anthony Burgess wrote in an introduction to A Clockwork Orange (his own novel) that the choice of twenty-one chapters is done purposefully since 21 is the age of the maturity. So it's not impossible that Melville did the 1/5th earth thing with his chapter structure.

[stlukesguild]

SLG- "Harold Bloom suggested that the closing sentence from Oscar Wilde's Preface to The Picture of Dorian Gray (All art is quite useless) be engraved over the entrance ways to universities and colleges."

My god ! My admiration for Bloom has just increased twofold!
Yes Bloom is a big Wilde fan.

I actually think that the Preface to Dorian Gray be engraved over the entrance ways to all buildings, never mind universities and colleges. Boy what a world that would be!

The problem is that this notion scares a lot of those who support the arts because they fear that such would only serve to give further ammunition to those who write school curriculum and government agencies who fund the arts. For quite some time the arts have been defended largely on grounds having little to do with art: art and literature help give students a greater understanding of history... the arts teach moral lessons... there's a link between music and mathematics... the arts promote the use of higher order thinking skills. In other words... art is taught primarily (and defended by those who should know better) for its "usefulness" in assisting students to grasp other more important practical skills.

[Perandorrrr]

Absolutely -- about the cigar. I took a poetry course early on in college
(2002) each student had to bring a poem to class to analyze. I noticed a lot of the poetry was more modern and "easy", shall we say. I decided to bring in Poe's "The Valley of the Unrest". It seemed like a fairly easy poem to decipher, plus, at that time I couldn't get past Poe when it came to American writers. We read the poem in class, we were only supposed to spend thirty minutes on it, at the most. No kidding you, we were talking about for an hour and a half (we could of gone on all night) getting no closer to what the meaning could be or maybe we did -- literally at each others throats by the end of the time allotted. My teacher had to stop the discussion because we all felt so strongly about what the poem meant. It was one of those moments where you witness first hand the power of writing, I will never forget that. I'm blown away by some interpretation of poetry. I say, keep it coming; the bizarre, strange. Let's push this thing as far as we can.

[OrphanPip]

The problem is that this notion scares a lot of those who support the arts because they fear that such would only serve to give further ammunition to those who write school curriculum and government agencies who fund the arts. For quite some time the arts have been defended largely on grounds having little to do with art: art and literature help give students a greater understanding of history... the arts teach moral lessons... there's a link between music and mathematics... the arts promote the use of higher order thinking skills. In other words... art is taught primarily (and defended by those who should know better) for its "usefulness" in assisting students to grasp other more important practical skills.

Well not to mention that there are those who disagree that the statement is true. I prefer the statement that all art need not be useful, rather than all art being useless. Art can be used for all the things mentioned above, but it can also have social and personal uses. I think people often don't appreciate what art can mean when it is often the only source of accessing a certain expression of your experience, even if we value art for its ability to let us experience other ideas and new forms of expression. When I was 14 and had no gay friends, knew no gay people, and had no access to the internet. Some of the only things I had to turn to to help understand my experiences were present in the arts. School libraries didn't carry non-fiction books about that stuff, at least mine didn't. I was however able to make my way to things like The Picture of Dorian Gray, the poetry of Auden, writings by Isherwood, and most importantly for me as a teen was Showcase (a sort of Canadian HBO), which showed gay themed movies every Monday after Queer as Folk.

This doesn't mean of course that my personal subjective uses for art make art universally useful, or that art has to have a use. However, I think it does challenge the statement that all art is useless, or that it is only about pleasure. Art can be so much more if we allow it to. And it so often has in the past when people were willing to take it as such.

[Jozanny]

I tend to deflate this problem through Desmond Morris'es approach as a zoologist looking at the human animal as evolved to make aesthetic choices; we therefore create art and respond to it on a biological basis. Vonnegut understood this too. It may not tell us which interpretations are better, but it explains the quest to get it right.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Anthony Burgess wrote in an introduction to A Clockwork Orange (his own novel) that the choice of twenty-one chapters is done purposefully since 21 is the age of the maturity. So it's not impossible that Melville did the 1/5th earth thing with his chapter structure.

I'm not at all saying it is impossible, but I just find it unlikely. Plus, as Neely mentioned, if we look at a work in the light that what most matters is how it affects the reader, the response (for me at least) to Burgess using 21 chapters is the same as Melville setting 1/5th of his story on land: so what?

And, I must admit, I don't understand Wilde's quote (I am a Wilde fan, btw), as it is simply incorrect.

[Mr.lucifer]

I interpertated Hamlet as a prediction of the world wars. War and peace was to me, an allegory of a depressed state of mind. I think Endgame is a warning of the evils of the Insurance industry. Madame bovary contains a lot of subtext of flaubert's hatred of the germans.

Cathcer in the rye really tells the story of Salinger's hatred of humanity. He wanted us all dead. In a hangover, the illiad can be the greatest story of a metaphor of the author's struggle with alcaholism. Gogol was a secret neo-paganist, thats the impresisio I get from him. He really believed in the beauty of valhalla.

[Drkshadow03]

I'm not at all saying it is impossible, but I just find it unlikely. Plus, as Neely mentioned, if we look at a work in the light that what most matters is how it affects the reader, the response (for me at least) to Burgess using 21 chapters is the same as Melville setting 1/5th of his story on land: so what?

And, I must admit, I don't understand Wilde's quote (I am a Wilde fan, btw), as it is simply incorrect.

I agree it's not overly important aspect of the work, but it speaks to the larger aesthetic structure.

However, in a work like Genesis 1 for example, structure and ordering matter quite a bit to understanding the meaning as each created sphere corresponds with the created living creatures/objects. Day 1 (light and heavens) corresponds with day 4 (sun and moon and stars); day 2 (water) corresponds with day 5 (sea creatures); day 3 (earth) corresponds with day 6 (land creatures and humans).

Getting back to symbolic structures, according to wikipedia, "The Hindu epic Mahabharata has eighteen sections, involves eighteen armies and is about a war fought over eighteen days." I think you'd find little structural things like this all the time in literature if you look for it.

[cyberbob]

I don't see anything wrong with an author telling people that their interpretations were wrong. A writer can only really be thinking of one thing when using symbolism even if that thing is very broad in scope.

For example, I can draw a picture of a rainbow and use it to symbolize homosexuality and that will be its meaning as I have used it. Or I could use the rainbow to symbolize nature. OR I could even possibly use it to symbolize both simultaneously, but in the end I'm ascribing certain meanings to this symbol and not every single interpretation of the meaning of this symbol can possibly be right.

If I use symbolism then that object MUST symbolize something else, it can't just be a vague idea that anyone can interpret any way they want and be equally correct. Otherwise, it isn't really symbolism is it? Maybe just a cheap attempt to seem profound.

And it's really presumptuous to call these writers ridiculous for correcting professors. Some stories are trying to tell a specific message, but use the format of a novel, for example, to make it interesting and have wider appeal than if they were to write an essay or something purely informative.

Besides, like the OP said, some of these interpretations can be so ridiculous that their speciousness might as well be brought to the attention of the interpreter, especially if this person is in a position of influence like a professor.

[mortalterror]

I agree it's not overly important aspect of the work, but it speaks to the larger aesthetic structure.

However, in a work like Genesis 1 for example, structure and ordering matter quite a bit to understanding the meaning as each created sphere corresponds with the created living creatures/objects. Day 1 (light and heavens) corresponds with day 4 (sun and moon and stars); day 2 (water) corresponds with day 5 (sea creatures); day 3 (earth) corresponds with day 6 (land creatures and humans).

Getting back to symbolic structures, according to wikipedia, "The Hindu epic Mahabharata has eighteen sections, involves eighteen armies and is about a war fought over eighteen days." I think you'd find little structural things like this all the time in literature if you look for it.

I love that kind of thing. The Divine Comedy: 100 cantos, 3 books, divided into 33 cantos each, plus one introduction in tirza rima. Hell, Purgatory, and Heaven, the holy trinity, threes everywhere. There's a bunch of sevens in there too.

The Decameron: 10 people telling 10 stories for ten days.

Journey to the West has a structure like the Divine Comedy chalk full of numeralogy. It's also laid out in 100 chapters. But book ended between the introduction and the conclusion are 81 trials the monks need to overcome. The number 9 in Chinese stands for endlessness, thus 9x9 is infinity, infinite perils, infinite complexity, infinite luck, and infinite understanding. The number 9 in the Chinese zodiac symbolizes the West and Monkeys. Monkey is the main character of the novel. One of the first trials the heroes undergo is being ambushed by 6 robbers, who allegorically represent the senses.

Spenser's Epithalamion "The poem consists of 365 long lines, corresponding to the days of the year; 68 short lines, representing the sum of the 52 weeks, 12 months, and 4 seasons of the annual cycle; and 24 stanzas, corresponding to the diurnal and sidereal hours."-wiki

In Virgil's Georgics you have the four part structure representing the seasons along with alternating hope and despair. Things like bees represent society, and agriculture is an allegory for human life. His longer epic the Aeneid retains this alternating pattern throughout twelve books, 6 represent the Odyssey and 6 the Iliad. Also, the first half is Amor, while the second half is Roma, love and rome his two subjects. On top of that is a further complicated ring composition. This sort of thing pops up again in works like Statius' Thebaid and Silvae.

More recently, in the film Back to the Future, the car needs to run at 88 miles an hour to travel through time. The 8 is a loop which travels back and forth on itself. On it's side it symbolizes infinity, and the boundless nature of time.

Or there's the Matrix. Neo who's name is an anagram for "the One" as he would later be called, lives in apartment 101. That's a palindrome, which can be spelled the same backwards and forwards. It also works symbolically as binary code. Likewise, when we first meet the character Trinity, she is in apartment 303, the same room that begins and ends the action of the story. Trinity has all kinds of biblical overtones which any Christian would recognize.

It's great when authors load up their works with layers of meaning. It's like they're giving you more bang for your buck.

[kiki1982]

@Cyberbob:

I understand what you are saying, but, to me, the art process is not something along the lines of 'what shall I put in the sky I am writing about? A sun, moon, stars or a rainbow? Let's have a look what it means... (goe to the encyclopedia on his shelf) A sun means happiness, a moon my inner world, stars mean hope and a rainbow has several possibilities. I know what, let's go for the moon because it looks like I have great possibilities with that further in the story.' I can't picture Dalì, as a painter, going, 'What shall I put next to the dripping clock? I know what, I'll paint the whole thing orange.' I rather look at that process of creation as a process that is more subconscious. The writer imagines certain things, occurrences and writes them down, and in that imagination he has joined up several things inexplicably. And yes, there may be some clear ideas in the writer's mind about his book, but unconsciously he may have put other messages in his work which he is not even aware of. As such, it may even be helpful for him to discern his brilliance ;).

Then there are definite gafs which shouldn't really be considered. I encountered someone on the Austen forum once who had to make an essay about Marxism in Pride and Prejudice. Jane Austen was rotating in her grave at high speed (that's what I would have done if I had been in her position). I find that going too far. Some works have been beaten to death with feminism, marxism, racism etc and they are no longer a work, but a feminist/marxist/racist work; never mind all the rest that's in it. I find that sad. It may be interesting to explore that for some time, but if there is too much of it, the whole thing becomes true, no longer an indication. It would at any rate be a riddle to me what the purpose would be of Marxism in Pride and Prejudice.

I think if an author is alive and sees someone interpreting his work in a way which he does not even consider his own ideas (marxist, racist, whatever), then he is perfectly welcome to write to the person and say, 'Stop it, because those are not even my opinions'.

To me, an interpretation must still be possible at all.

@Mortalterror:

Yes, it's great isn't it, numerology. :D

By the way, I did not know about Genesis. That's a new one. ;)

[LitNetIsGreat]

And, I must admit, I don't understand Wilde's quote (I am a Wilde fan, btw), as it is simply incorrect.
Wilde did not literally mean that art was useless, far from it, he meant that art is free from the need to be useful in any practical sense of the word. That art has an intrinsic life of its own. The phrase “All art is useless” is a praise of art and not a criticism of it.

Really Wilde took this idea pretty much from the work of Gautier or at least had Gautier/Pater in mind when writing.

The preface was added to the second edition of the work in order to respond to criticisms made by the press of its subject matter which they saw as “immoral”. Wilde responds here by separating himself from the work – the work has a life of its own and artists are free to express what they will:

No artist has ethical sympathies. An ethical sympathy in an artist is an unpardonable mannerism of style.
No artist is ever morbid. The artist can express everything.
Thought and language are to the artist instruments of an art.
Vice and virtue are to the artist materials for an art.

To criticise Wilde for immorality in DG is to confuse the art with the artist. The subject matter – the thoughts and language of the novel - are the instruments of the artist only. The work stands alone.


It would at any rate be a riddle to me what the purpose would be of Marxism in Pride and Prejudice.
A Marxist literary critic would be interested at looking at the social fabric of the novel. For instance they would consider the structure of power in that society at that time, and would look to such things as the role of the church, education and law. The would be interested in how these structures control individuals, and probably, how these institutions maintain the status quo, most likely from a critical perspective.


I think if an author is alive and sees someone interpreting his work in a way which he does not even consider his own ideas (marxist, racist, whatever), then he is perfectly welcome to write to the person and say, 'Stop it, because those are not even my opinions'.
The writer has no more claim over that text. When they dot the last full-stop the work is no longer theirs – they might as well be dead even if they were alive. The opinion of the writer is of interest sure, but it is not the definitive law. Going back to Wilde, “It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors”. A work may mean different things to different people (or even different things to us as we grow older) because it is impossible to reduce a work to one “correct” meaning because there often isn’t one. Jane Austen could argue with a Marxist/Feminist critic if she chose to, but in the end, she would just be another voice in the argument.

[Drkshadow03]

By the way, I did not know about Genesis. That's a new one. ;)

That's actually a pretty well-known interpretation known as the Framework Interpretation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framework_interpretation_(Genesis)).

[kiki1982]

About Wilde. That's what I gathered from that quote, or something of the sort.

Did he not, at the point where he was in court, and they produced evidence for his homosexuality on the basis of his writings, argue that as well? That he was not his art? It didn't hit home, though, unfortunately. Too difficult an argument I suppose...


A Marxist literary critic would be interested at looking at the social fabric of the novel. For instance they would consider the structure of power in that society at that time, and would look to such things as the role of the church, education and law. The would be interested in how these structures control individuals, and probably, how these institutions maintain the status quo, most likely from a critical perspective.

Ok, that makes more sense, but still, then I wonder whether that book is going to do the trick. I mean, I would rather find Sense and Sensibility useful in that department, if I have to stay with Austen. She just does not offer too much thought in terms of real institutions exercising power and wanting to keep it to be interesting in that respect. It could do well to do a study with that in mind of her whole work, then, as that offers much more, but I don't think P&P has a great pool of quotes to take from. Sure, there is oppression that no-one notices and which she makes fun of, but she doesn't reflect on it. People are ruled by it because of custom not because of any person really. Unlike Tess of the d'Urbervilles or The Mill on the Floss, for example.


The writer has no more claim over that text. When they dot the last full-stop the work is no longer theirs – they might as well be dead even if they were alive. The opinion of the writer is of interest sure, but it is not the definitive law. Going back to Wilde, “It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors”. A work may mean different things to different people (or even different things to us as we grow older) because it is impossible to reduce a work to one “correct” meaning because there often isn’t one. Jane Austen could argue with a Marxist/Feminist critic if she chose to, but in the end, she would just be another voice in the argument.

I understand that there is no 'correct' meaning for a work of art, and that one could research certain controversial meanings (to some) in it. I only think that some things have been overdone and as such have damaged the overall impression that work gives to people. If feminist criticism for example claims that Hardy's Tess has masochist tendencies, then I kind of cringe. The result is that a whole generation of school kids has been fed the 'weak woman'-Hardy and can't see the principle of Naturalism at all. The weak woman Hardy has been addressed so much that he has become true, not to his intent or my inclination at all. I find that a bit sad.

[kiki1982]

That's actually a pretty well-known interpretation known as the Framework Interpretation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framework_interpretation_(Genesis)).

Must have missed it, then. :)

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Thanks for the explanation of the quote. I figured I wasn't getting it, because I found it hard to believe Wilde would think so.

[Rores28]

Very interesting points, Neely.

And maybe this is why I rolled my eyes at the assertion that it was more than coincedence, because, and someone can argue this if they want, but it really adds nothing. Whereas when someone tells you about all the things the white whale could represent you think, wow, that is pretty interesting, the 1/5th tidbit adds nothing, other than Melville may have been extremely meticulous.



There's a part in Moby Dick where Ishmael refers to a book written on whales and he comments that the book has to be big because it is on such a big subject. I assume this can only be a little inside joke about his own work. And it shows that Melville was at least thinking about these formal issues.

If he made the book large because the subject matter was large (literally and figuratively) and divided the book in a way that symbolized the geography of the world, I think that is actually pretty cool. To make the book reflect the world and philosophical issues on so many formal and stylistic levels I think would actually be very interesting and impressive, and in fact maybe even better if it was unintentional.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Thanks for the explanation of the quote. I figured I wasn't getting it, because I found it hard to believe Wilde would think so.
Oh don’t worry, I think a lot of people misplace that last line. There is a very short letter which Wilde wrote to a Mr R Clegg, an unidentified figure, probably just a fan of Wilde, who obviously asked him what he meant by all art being useless, in it Wilde writes:

My dear Sir, Art is useless because its aim is simply to create a mood. It is not meant to instruct, or to influence action in any way. It is superbly sterile, and the note of its pleasure is sterility. [...] A work of art is useless as a flower is useless. A flower blossoms for its own joy. We gain a moment of joy by looking at it. That is all that is to be said of our relations to flowers. Of course man may sell the flower, and so make it useful to him, but this has nothing to do with the flower. It is not part of its essence. It is accidental. It is a misuse. All this I fear is very obscure. But the subject is a long one.

Truly yours, Oscar Wilde.

As I said earlier, Wilde was far from saying that art is useless in a literal sense, quite the opposite, in fact as Stephen Fry rightly said “his opinion on art was so high that most people thought he was joking” for Wilde art was a living thing with its own independent life and the importance of it can not be understated. As he said later in his life “nothing at any moment in my life was the smallest concern to me compared with art”. But anyway, that’s enough of that.


Ok, that makes more sense, but still, then I wonder whether that book is going to do the trick. I mean, I would rather find Sense and Sensibility useful in that department, if I have to stay with Austen. She just does not offer too much thought in terms of real institutions exercising power and wanting to keep it to be interesting in that respect. It could do well to do a study with that in mind of her whole work, then, as that offers much more, but I don't think P&P has a great pool of quotes to take from. Sure, there is oppression that no-one notices and which she makes fun of, but she doesn't reflect on it. People are ruled by it because of custom not because of any person really. Unlike Tess of the d'Urbervilles or The Mill on the Floss, for example.
Well maybe. There’s nothing to stop a writer bringing in other Austen novels to support an argument though. A Marxist reading of Jane Eyre works better anyway.


I understand that there is no 'correct' meaning for a work of art, and that one could research certain controversial meanings (to some) in it. I only think that some things have been overdone and as such have damaged the overall impression that work gives to people. If feminist criticism for example claims that Hardy's Tess has masochist tendencies, then I kind of cringe. The result is that a whole generation of school kids has been fed the 'weak woman'-Hardy and can't see the principle of Naturalism at all. The weak woman Hardy has been addressed so much that he has become true, not to his intent or my inclination at all. I find that a bit sad.
Maybe some things are overdone in some cases, but I don’t think it brainwashes students’ views of a work or at least it shouldn’t. For me that’s not the aim of criticism, criticism should open up the work for discussion and not to close it off.


There's a part in Moby Dick where Ishmael refers to a book written on whales and he comments that the book has to be big because it is on such a big subject. I assume this can only be a little inside joke about his own work. And it shows that Melville was at least thinking about these formal issues.

If he made the book large because the subject matter was large (literally and figuratively) and divided the book in a way that symbolized the geography of the world, I think that is actually pretty cool. To make the book reflect the world and philosophical issues on so many formal and stylistic levels I think would actually be very interesting and impressive, and in fact maybe even better if it was unintentional.

I have to agree, it sounds interesting to me, though I have not read the novel that would be my first step of course.

[kiki1982]

Well maybe. There’s nothing to stop a writer bringing in other Austen novels to support an argument though. A Marxist reading of Jane Eyre works better anyway.

Didn't want to mention the latter as it seems to be a mantra that I keep repeating. It 's getting quite embarrassing :blush5:. But yes, there are better precedents for doing it than Austen really.



Maybe some things are overdone in some cases, but I don’t think it brainwashes students’ views of a work or at least it shouldn’t. For me that’s not the aim of criticism, criticism should open up the work for discussion and not to close it off.

I suppose that I had such a teacher who decided to beat certain things to death and who didn't see anything else. Indeed that is not the point of criticism. I guess I just had bad experiences.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Didn't want to mention the latter as it seems to be a mantra that I keep repeating. It 's getting quite embarrassing :blush5:. But yes, there are better precedents for doing it than Austen really.

Yes I know you like the novel that's why I mentioned it.:p I like that you like it so much, I'll come to you for support if I ever write on it again, though I don't think I ever will now. There are better precedents for doing Jane Eyre though yes, that's why certain texts probably get singled out more than others as they offer more obvious examples to teach from, especially for those new to theory/criticism perhaps?


I suppose that I had such a teacher who decided to beat certain things to death and who didn't see anything else. Indeed that is not the point of criticism. I guess I just had bad experiences.

Maybe. I think that a teacher/lecturer should provide alternative readings, provoke debate etc, etc, but I don't know in your case obviously. Teachers have set objectives that they have to cover and it's not always down to them exactly what is taught, rarely is in fact, so you have to bear that in mind as well.

[kiki1982]

Yes I know you like the novel that's why I mentioned it.:p I like that you like it so much, I'll come to you for support if I ever write on it again, though I don't think I ever will now. There are better precedents for doing Jane Eyre though yes, that's why certain texts probably get singled out more than others as they offer more obvious examples to teach from, especially for those new to theory/criticism perhaps?

Haha, I have been totally discovered then. :lol: I'll have to start on something else :D. I don't know why it has sparked my interest for such a long time. And I have been busy with the 2006 adaptation now (the one that made me read Jane Eyre in the first place). It is amazing. Although it possibly has to do with the fact that my hubby is in Prague for a month (CELTA course). Maybe I'll write something on Cyrano. That also has great potential, although there is not such a lot of French criticism (academic) free online to use.

Probably the latter you mentioned is the case, yes.

[cyberbob]

I disagree that a writer has no claim over his own text. Words themslves are just symbols after all. They can be ambiguous, but they must have a specific meaning under any given context if they're to make any sense.

For example, imagine a scientist publishes an article about some observations that he made while studying a furry animal. If he doesn't specify which exact species the animal was, then it is open to interpretation by the reader as to which animal the scientist meant.

However, the scientist only did study one certain species and every interpretation that assumes it to be another species is superficially plausible but, nevertheless, wrong.

The specific article is indeed out of his power to amend. Anyone who reads a copy of that article can draw a conclusion that is plausible. But that doesn't mean that the scientist cannot publish another article or amend future copies of the original which states the correct species that he observed.

[cyberbob]

In this hypothetical situation, the writer left something open to interpretation. Words, like other forms of symbolism, can be ambiguous. However, it's ridiculous to say that the writer has no more authority on its meaning than anyone else. In the scientist's case, no one would think twice to accept the amended version of the article as the correct, or most likely to be correct interpretation.

Indeed, it's impossible that no one interpretation can be correct because then no one interpretation can be incorrect either. After all, we can only judge the amount of accuracy of something if we have a fixed reference point. And the person most qualified to indicate that reference point is definitely the writer. No one would deny that not every interpretation can be equally correct, otherwise interpretations would be worthless. Logically if not all can be correct then one must be the most correct, that one being the original interpretation created by the author, whether consciously or subconsciously.

[JCamilo]

Of course there is correct meaning of a text and wrong interpretations. But so what? The use of the word is itself a mistake, the real question is if the interpretations are valid or not. And of course they are. The story of art is build by interpretations not understandment.

And you can sittuations were nobody is correct, nobody has the most perfect interpretation and even, the fact some authors did not explain what he meant or language itself is not enough for this (after all, if a poet decided to write an Ode to a Grecian Urn to talk about aspects of art, is possible because that form of presentation was the best way he could to do it.)...

And scientists are misunderstood a lot. Normal people, without not scientific trainning cannt even understand the specific context of scientific terminology, but they still have access to theories and discuss it. Social Darwinism for example is due to misunderstanding of Darwin's theory. Even if scientists try to protect their ideas with detailed explanation, use of mathematical language, etc you can still see that they argue over and over about theories trying to understand it, not just test it.

[cyberbob]

Of course there is correct meaning of a text and wrong interpretations. But so what? The use of the word is itself a mistake, the real question is if the interpretations are valid or not. And of course they are. The story of art is build by interpretations not understandment.

And you can sittuations were nobody is correct, nobody has the most perfect interpretation and even, the fact some authors did not explain what he meant or language itself is not enough for this (after all, if a poet decided to write an Ode to a Grecian Urn to talk about aspects of art, is possible because that form of presentation was the best way he could to do it.)...

And scientists are misunderstood a lot. Normal people, without not scientific trainning cannt even understand the specific context of scientific terminology, but they still have access to theories and discuss it. Social Darwinism for example is due to misunderstanding of Darwin's theory. Even if scientists try to protect their ideas with detailed explanation, use of mathematical language, etc you can still see that they argue over and over about theories trying to understand it, not just test it.

As a matter of fact, you cannot have a situation where nobody is correct because the person who originally wrote it had to at least have been correct in the moment that he wrote it. Even if an author changes his mind and says that he actually meant something else afterwards, or forgets just what he meant when he wrote it, there is still a correct answer which only the author could know with absolute certainty.

And I know that often times authors don't explicitly state what they meant when they wrote something. But when they DO explicitly state what they meant, their opinion is certainly more valid than anyone else's, and theirs' is most likely to be completely correct. My point was that authors do have the unique authority to tell others whether a certain interpretation is wrong. I don't see how this is in any worse taste than my hypothetical scientist revising his article to specify which animal he meant.

And lastly, I understand that people misconstrue scientific theories all the time and apply them in gross ways.That is actually what my whole argument rests on. People CAN misinterpret certain ideas, and there is a precisely correct way of interpreting them, whether or not we ever actually are able to do so.

How can we do so? The very best way of re-assuring any interpretation is to ask the creator of the idea being interpreted. That doesn't mean that whatever the creator says is necessarily true, but if what he/she says is the correct interpretation makes sense to our own understanding of the idea then it's the best possible interpretation. For example, no one would believe Ayn Rand if she said The Fountainhead was a metaphor for the suffering that bunny rabbits endure when hiding from predators, but they would believe her if she said it was a metaphor for individuality vs. collectivism or something like that. Likewise, no one would believe Charles Darwin if he said that what he actually meant in The Origin of Species was that we evolved from monkeys in the same way that Pikachu evolves into Raichu, but they would believe him if he meant that both monkeys and humans evolved from a common ancestor.

In this way, listening to an author's interpretation of his own work is the best way to find out the true meaning of an idea since, afterall, he created that idea. To claim that a writer is silly or lacks taste because he corrects those that misinterpret his idea is, in my opinion, silly and lacking in taste.

[LitNetIsGreat]

:lol: Cyberbob, art is not a science.

I’d agree that in a scientific presentation clarity of argument is paramount, but this is not necessarily so with art. Fundamentally I suppose, art deals with emotion and feeling, intellectual stimulation, aesthetic pleasure, escapism, mood, emotion, the musicality of the text and so on and so on – so is there a “correct” mood or feeling that a work is supposed to illicit? Are we all supposed to think and feel the same thing when we read a book, listen to a piece of music or view a work of art, with the artist standing over us with a clipboard ticking off a “correct” response? I don’t think so.

Hell, even a cold scientific report is likely to evoke a different response from a reader: interest, agreement, disagreement, (somewhere in-between), cries of protest from animal rightists, boredom, confusion…

I can guess you are keen on science which is fine, but you can’t necessarily try to apply the same rigid principles to that as to art.

The life of art outgrows its creator.

[kelby_lake]

Often writers don't 100% know what they're doing. A lot of it is subconscious.

[Jozanny]

Often writers don't 100% know what they're doing. A lot of it is subconscious.

Wrong. A writer who doesn't know what they're doing doesn't remain one for long. A project may change, or stick, and another pair of eyes may see something else, but any author knows how to drive the bus, whether it is Shakespeare or me.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Kelby didn't say writers don't know what they're doing, he said they don't 100% know what they're doing, which I think is true. Your subconscious is going to seep into your writing. Intonations are going to be made that the writer may not even be aware of. It's not like the whole piece will have a obvious unintended message, but I think certain small things will enter the writing.

[Drkshadow03]

As a matter of fact, you cannot have a situation where nobody is correct because the person who originally wrote it had to at least have been correct in the moment that he wrote it. Even if an author changes his mind and says that he actually meant something else afterwards, or forgets just what he meant when he wrote it, there is still a correct answer which only the author could know with absolute certainty.

And I know that often times authors don't explicitly state what they meant when they wrote something. But when they DO explicitly state what they meant, their opinion is certainly more valid than anyone else's, and theirs' is most likely to be completely correct. My point was that authors do have the unique authority to tell others whether a certain interpretation is wrong. I don't see how this is in any worse taste than my hypothetical scientist revising his article to specify which animal he meant.

And lastly, I understand that people misconstrue scientific theories all the time and apply them in gross ways.That is actually what my whole argument rests on. People CAN misinterpret certain ideas, and there is a precisely correct way of interpreting them, whether or not we ever actually are able to do so.

How can we do so? The very best way of re-assuring any interpretation is to ask the creator of the idea being interpreted. That doesn't mean that whatever the creator says is necessarily true, but if what he/she says is the correct interpretation makes sense to our own understanding of the idea then it's the best possible interpretation. For example, no one would believe Ayn Rand if she said The Fountainhead was a metaphor for the suffering that bunny rabbits endure when hiding from predators, but they would believe her if she said it was a metaphor for individuality vs. collectivism or something like that. Likewise, no one would believe Charles Darwin if he said that what he actually meant in The Origin of Species was that we evolved from monkeys in the same way that Pikachu evolves into Raichu, but they would believe him if he meant that both monkeys and humans evolved from a common ancestor.

In this way, listening to an author's interpretation of his own work is the best way to find out the true meaning of an idea since, afterall, he created that idea. To claim that a writer is silly or lacks taste because he corrects those that misinterpret his idea is, in my opinion, silly and lacking in taste.

But your argument is silly.

It would basically require a time machine. Except for contemporary writers the fact is we don't always have access to many writer's statements about what they believe their own text to be about. So all we have is the text to judge from. Why should we judge some works by the actual work (when we lack an author's statement about their intentions) and why should some works be judged and interpreted with the aid of an author's intentions (when we possibly do have such a statement)? Why should we judge a work of art by anything other than the work of art itself?

If for example, we had a work that 100,000 readers thought meant A and 100,000 readers thought meant B, and 0 readers thought meant C, but then the author declares it actually meant C (and according to you the author is the most important authority), then at the very least the art is a complete failure. It's not getting its point across that the author claims he/she intended by the work of art alone. Nobody understood the author's meaning of it by just reading the work itself.

Even Bradbury's issue with the interpretations of Fahrenheit 451 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farenheit_451#Themes) highlights problems with listening to the author as ultimate authority. At one point in 1979 he wrote a coda essentially implying that the book was about censorship. In 2007, he gave an interview to the LA Times claiming his book wasn't about censorship at all, but the effects of television on mass culture's desire to read.

Besides, this also ignores that a work can have more than one meaning.

As Neely pointed out, your analogy isn't very good because science and art are two different disciplines with different expectations and produce different types of written discourse. Just like you wouldn't read the story in a newspaper the same way you would read a story in a novel. It has nothing do with the one single correct interpretation, and everything do with a valid interpretation (can the interpretation be supported by what is actually written in the text).

[JCamilo]

It is well know that a writer may not be fully aware of his feelings or controls 100% of what is meaning when he first writes. It is pretty much like St.Thomas would point, the divine revelation and all. In the end, a writer became a reader after he finishes, even of his own text. So, even a writer may not have the correct interpretation of anything. Language is often bigger.

Anyways, Science is not literature, but it uses languages. Even if they seek clarity and precision, they know so well this. A scientific work still uses more than text to present their theories. They still use maths. And more, some demand that a theory to be accepted must be not just understood (math wise or text wise), it must be reproduced by experimentantion by anyone else but the author of the text. Some even claim that Darwin was not "scientific" because he presented well his theory, not quite well math wise and nothing could be reproduced in laboratory. So, even science "protects" themselves with an extra set of language, with experience for understandment, not just text because they all know: clarity is impossible.

[cyberbob]

@ Neely

Comparing writing to music or visual art can be as tricky as comparing it to science.

Music, and more generally sounds, can have an emotional/aesthetic effect on us without making sense. The same with a painting. A song doesn't need to say anything and a painting doesn't need to show anything concrete to be appealing because they appeal directly to our senses.

However writing is different because it doesn't appeal directly to our senses. A piece of writing doesn't need to be useful, but it has to make sense. Randomly arranged letters (like trgfqlkn) have no aesthetical qualities.

Art is a made-up word and we choose what we consider art. Someone here even said critiquing was art. Of course I'm NOT arguing that writing isn't artistic, that the emotional effect writing has isn't its most important quality, or that knowing precisely what a symbol means is important. I'm NOT saying any of those things.

I'm also NOT denying that not every writer has explicitly stated what he meant in his writing.

[cyberbob]

And I'm NOT denying that part of an author's writing is subconscious. I'm arguing against the idea that a writer is doing something wrong by correcting misinterpretations. Writing is artistic but it can be equally informational and the author has a right to elucidate his message. Writers take advantage of the aesthetic qualities of their art to affect the reader more than they would by outright telling them. So although their intended message may not be as important as the effect it has on the individual, which I believe too, it should not be dismissed. Saying that a writer is wrong to correct misinterpretations to me seems like total bull****.

SORRY for double post!

[kelby_lake]

Kelby didn't say writers don't know what they're doing, she said they don't 100% know what they're doing, which I think is true. Your subconscious is going to seep into your writing. Intonations are going to be made that the writer may not even be aware of. It's not like the whole piece will have a obvious unintended message, but I think certain small things will enter the writing.

Thanks :) Writers may start out with an intention but the book they envisaged at the start of writing and the book that finally makes it onto the shelves are two very different things. Not all of the changes are intentional- some elements simply take over, whether the writer intended them to or not.

[kelby_lake]

And I'm NOT denying that part of an author's writing is subconscious. I'm arguing against the idea that a writer is doing something wrong by correcting misinterpretations. Writing is artistic but it can be equally informational and the author has a right to elucidate his message. Writers take advantage of the aesthetic qualities of their art to affect the reader more than they would by outright telling them. So although their intended message may not be as important as the effect it has on the individual, which I believe too, it should not be dismissed. Saying that a writer is wrong to correct misinterpretations to me seems like total bull****.

SORRY for double post!

If the writer intended a certain message but readers did not pick up on it, that suggests that the writer didn't convey it properly. I assume by message you mean something political.

[cyberbob]

^ No I don't. I'm talking about any use of symbolism.

I agree that an author may not convey a message clearly enough to prevent misinterpretation. That's par for the course with symbolism. I'm saying that a writer isn't wrong if he wants to clarify his message.

[Jozanny]

Kelby didn't say writers don't know what they're doing, he said they don't 100% know what they're doing, which I think is true. Your subconscious is going to seep into your writing. Intonations are going to be made that the writer may not even be aware of. It's not like the whole piece will have a obvious unintended message, but I think certain small things will enter the writing.

There is a difference between losing control of the car once it is on the road and putting it together on the assembly line. Proust may not have envisioned that I would see his invalidism as a shared cultural experience, but my trained eye can see what a clever boy he is to have all the mechanics in place so that his legacy would last such that I could see it, Mutatis. We know certain things, trust me, and Neely is too much of an absolutist.

Wilde is dead, but his work is much weaker for not knowing certain things about his life; his biography informs upon the work, and the biography with the work coupled together inform upon the intent, and Neely informs us upon that intent daily: Wilde meant x, not y.

Intent and end product are not mutually exclusive.

[kelby_lake]

^ No I don't. I'm talking about any use of symbolism.

I agree that an author may not convey a message clearly enough to prevent misinterpretation. That's par for the course with symbolism. I'm saying that a writer isn't wrong if he wants to clarify his message.

But then that damages the work. He's basically admitting that his symbolism was inadequate. Symbolism is not as simple as A=B. For example, water can symbolise many things. Rain could be a pessemistic symbol or a cleansing symbol, and a work might contain both of those themes.

If a writer has to explain their message, they might as well not have bothered to write a novel/play/poem and just told us what they wanted to say.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Ha, ha, old Jozanny is not letting go of her characters again. ;)

[cyberbob]

But then that damages the work. He's basically admitting that his symbolism was inadequate. Symbolism is not as simple as A=B. For example, water can symbolise many things. Rain could be a pessemistic symbol or a cleansing symbol, and a work might contain both of those themes.

If a writer has to explain their message, they might as well not have bothered to write a novel/play/poem and just told us what they wanted to say.

It's your opinion that it damages the work.

Symbolism CAN be as simple as A=B.

Rain can mean many things but the author intends a finite # of meanings every time.

He might not as well just say what he wanted to say because a novel/play/poem can reach a broader audience.

[LitNetIsGreat]

It's your opinion that it damages the work.

Symbolism CAN be as simple as A=B.

Rain can mean many things but the author intends a finite # of meanings every time.

He might not as well just say what he wanted to say because a novel/play/poem can reach a broader audience.

Seriously how can opinion damage a work? How does an author seek to control a finite number of meanings? No, no, no.:hand:

[Drkshadow03]

Seriously how can opinion damage a work? How does an author seek to control a finite number of meanings? No, no, no.:hand:

Obviously, the author goes to each person's house who has ever purchased his book and demands to have a minimum of two hours to pontificate about the actual meaning of his book.

And then when people bring up the Intentional Fallacy (http://faculty.smu.edu/nschwart/seminar/Fallacy.htm) or Barthes' "death of the author (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_the_Author)" essay he kicks them in the shins, tells them they're wrong, sticks his fingers in his ears, and then cries about it.

[cyberbob]

Seriously how can opinion damage a work? How does an author seek to control a finite number of meanings? No, no, no.:hand:

When did I say opinion damaged a work? I didn't.

I'm saying you're wrong for claiming an author is silly and misguided for telling others what he meant.

I won't even answer the other question because it hardly makes sense.

[LitNetIsGreat]

When did I say opinion damaged a work? I didn't.

I'm saying you're wrong for claiming an author is silly and misguided for telling others what he meant.

I won't even answer the other question because it hardly makes sense.

Well, in the bit when you said "it's your opinion that it damages the work" or maybe you just meant Kelby's opinion, Kelby can't have an opinion?

Look, I'm not saying that it is not interesting and very imformative reading from a biographical point of view. Jozanny is correct, I've spent about the last ten years on or off reading into Wilde's life and work, it is invaluable, but, it is not the end of the matter when dealing with an interpretation of a work. Hell, even Wilde can't agree on what's going on with Dorian Gray, he's just another reader.

[Drkshadow03]

Well, in the bit when you said "it's your opinion that it damages the work" or maybe you just meant Kelby's opinion, Kelby can't have an opinion?

Look, I'm not saying that it is not interesting and very imformative reading from a biographical point of view. Jozanny is correct, I've spent about the last ten years on or off reading into Wilde's life and work, it is invaluable, but, it is not the end of the matter when dealing with an interpretation of a work. Hell, even Wilde can't agree on what's going on with Dorian Gray, he's just another reader.

Exactly. No one is saying that authors don't have intentions when writing their works or that biography is completely irrelevant in so far that the stuff of literature comes from life. However, ultimately these intentions need to show up the text regardless of what any author might have to say about it after the fact. It needs to be there independently for the reader to pick up, and sometimes, authors do write things without realizing all the social implications or all the possible interpretations of an image or character depictions, etc.

[cyberbob]

When I said "It's your opinion..." I was referring to Kelby's statement that an author telling the reader what a symbol meant damaged the work. If the author becomes a reader like any other like you (or Wilde)claim then it couldn't do any significant damage.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Oh OK, I see.

Edit: oh, also maybe have a go at reading those essays that drk posted. You might find them interesting.

[stlukesguild]

Neely- The life of art outgrows its creator.

Exactly. And this may be rather immediate. I am surprised sometimes at the interpretations and responses my work provokes... and while I may disagree with some of these, I will also listen to them because I recognize that the artist has no more title to the last word on a work of art than anyone else.

kelby lake- Often writers don't 100% know what they're doing. A lot of it is subconscious.

Jozanny- Wrong. A writer who doesn't know what they're doing doesn't remain one for long. A project may change, or stick, and another pair of eyes may see something else, but any author knows how to drive the bus, whether it is Shakespeare or me.

JoZ and kelby seemingly present two diametrically opposed views of art. The romantic view of art imagines that luck, inspiration, fortuitous accident, the subconscious, etc... are the essential aspects of artistic creation, where as JoZ presents the pragmatic realists view that the artist is fully conscious of all he or she does. From my own experience, I would say the truth lays somewhere in between. I am fully conscious of a good deal of the mechanics of my work, the formal composition and how it is employed to direct the eye, etc... I am also quite aware of the history that I build upon, the iconography that I employ, and how these may certainly provoke the viewer.

On the other hand, this does not negate the subconscious. I may adjust a color or slightly move a line or form without being able to give you a logical reason why I chose to do so... other than that I thought it didn't look quite right. I may also know what my intentions were in making a given work of art... but I also recognize that the work of art lives in the real world... outside of me... and others may see things in a given work or interpret things in a manner that I never intended or imagined. Some of these interpretations may be just as valid as my intentions.

cyberbob- Music, and more generally sounds, can have an emotional/aesthetic effect on us without making sense. The same with a painting. A song doesn't need to say anything and a painting doesn't need to show anything concrete to be appealing because they appeal directly to our senses.

However writing is different because it doesn't appeal directly to our senses. A piece of writing doesn't need to be useful, but it has to make sense. Randomly arranged letters (like trgfqlkn) have no aesthetical qualities.

Music and art... even abstract art... are no less lacking in a logical aesthetic form than literature. By the same token, the abstract elements of writing... words, sounds, the visual layout on the page... are just as capable of inspiring an emotional response without making any logical sense. The comparison with a collection of randomly organized letters is not exactly a fair comparison. Rather look at Lewis Carroll's Jaberwocky or Rimbaud's Illuminations, or Joyce's Finnegan's Wake.

cyberbob-Saying that a writer is wrong to correct misinterpretations to me seems like total bull****.

The writer/creator may certainly state that a given interpretation was not his or her intention, but again, the work of art lives in the world beyond the creator. The artist is no more the last word on the "meaning" or interpretation of a work of art than is anybody else... for the simple reason that no one... not even the artist... can possibly imagine all the allusions suggested by a work of art... all that a work might suggest... all the works of art created prior to or subsequently that seem to engage in a dialog with the given work.

Jozanny-There is a difference between losing control of the car once it is on the road and putting it together on the assembly line.

Now that is a good analogy. I agree that there's a difference between the loss of control of meaning or interpretation once a work enters the real world... and the suggestion that the artist is unaware of what he or she intends during the creative process. Even so... during the creative process... there are elements that are not the result of a fully conscious awareness. Surely I may choose a given color or a writer may employ a given word simply because it "felt right" without a conscious logical reason as to why this color or word is better than every possible alternative.

Neely- Ha, ha, old Jozanny is not letting go of her characters again.

I think lot's of artists struggle with this... a realization that the work of art is not so much a part of the artist... not so much "self expression"... as it is something new added to the world which then takes on a life of its own.

[Seasider]

Not adding any philosophical insights but being reminded of the scene in Annie Hall when some pompous *** in a theatre queue ( I think) was impressing his gf with the real meaning of Marshall McCluhan's work and the real Marshall McCluhan materialises behind them and states in no uncertain terms what bs the guy is spouting. This is a memory from 30+ years ago and I am still laughing at it.

[cyberbob]

How is it not a fair comparison?

Whether it's Joyce, Lewis Carroll, Dr. Seuss, or Dan Brown you need to understand language and be able to read to extract anything from their books.

You don't need to know anything to enjoy art or music. Both orthodox and abstract art can appeal to you by their use of colors and shapes alone. The same with music.

No matter if a book is regular or abstract, you'll get no aesthetical pleasure from it if it's written in Arabic and you don't read Arabic.

Writing is clearly fundamentally different from art and music.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

You don't need to know anything to enjoy art or music.

Wow. Just, wow. That is truly an amazing statement.

[JCamilo]

How is it not a fair comparison?

Whether it's Joyce, Lewis Carroll, Dr. Seuss, or Dan Brown you need to understand language and be able to read to extract anything from their books.

You don't need to know anything to enjoy art or music. Both orthodox and abstract art can appeal to you by their use of colors and shapes alone. The same with music.

No matter if a book is regular or abstract, you'll get no aesthetical pleasure from it if it's written in Arabic and you don't read Arabic.

Writing is clearly fundamentally different from art and music.

So, the point of Stlukes is not that one. Someone who cann't read is more close to someone deaf. The point Stlukes wants to point is that you may not understand a single line of a text and yet enjoy it. It is not that you cann't read a single line.

The differences between writing from music (I refuse to even wonder what are we doing when Writing cann't be an art form) is not the spirit, but form. Fundamentally is funny, because you should first define the fundaments of both and from which perspective.

This thread is getting silly, people should be discussing language and not art. What causes the problem is how language works, not how art works. Any languange, any is only a part of the message. It can only suggest it. As such, it is always flawed, always will lack or add. Be it a newspaper, a scientif threatise, a book of poetry or this forum. Misunderstanding is quite effective as form of life.

Just read an interview of Coppola which said they all want people to try to steal their works because people just cannt. They can only steal what is given to them and will have to transform the rest. He is talking about cinema, mentioned Balzac there but this is so Eliotesque...

[mortalterror]

This whole thread in a nutshell.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQnAhSzb4gY

And here's the clip Seasider mentioned from Annie Hall, pretty much the same thing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBtXfBdEXEs

[cyberbob]

Wow. Just, wow. That is truly an amazing statement.

Not amazing at all. It's common sense. I'm not saying that there isn't a lot to know about them.

A caveman could listen to an electric guitar and enjoy the sound it makes without knowing what the hell an electric guitar is or how it works.

The same thing with a painting. He may not know what a painting is portraying, for example, or he may not know what exactly a painting is, but he can still find the colors and shapes aesthetically pleasing.

With writing, however, he must have an understanding of language or he cannot possibly enjoy it. A book has no inherently aesthetic properties aside from incidental ones like a soft cover (except in an e-book). He can only enjoy it if he learns first. Writing clearly appeals to the human brain on a different level than visual art or music because it doesn't operate primarily on a sensory experience. That is what I meant so please don't feign any righteous indignation.

[stlukesguild]

How is it not a fair comparison?

You suggest that the analogy between literature and art or music is strained because art and music appeal immediately to the senses (and need not make any sense) while literature must make sense. You then use a random row of letters (trgfqlkn) to illustrate your point. The problem is that art and music are no more random than literature. There are definite structures in both music and even in abstract art. Without the ability to recognize these structures... this visual language... music can seem as meaningless as any work of literature. The person first listening to jazz, or Indian ragas, or medieval chants, or opera, or Renaissance madrigals, or Modernist atonal music will often find the work as "meaningless" as someone attempting to read a work of literature in a foreign language that they do not speak. At the same time, it must be recognized that literature employs formal languages as well. A poem from Rimbaud's Illuminations such as:

As soon as the idea of the Deluge had subsided, a hare stopped in the clover and swaying flower-belles, and said a prayer to the rainbow through the spider's web.
Oh! the precious stones that began to hide,- and the flowers that already began to look around.
In the dirty main streets stalls were set up and boats were hauled toward the sea, high-tiered, as in old prints.
Blood flowed at Blue Beard's - through the slaughterhouses, in circuses, where the windows were blanched by God's seal. Blood and Milk flowed.
beavers built. "Mazagrans" smoked in little bars.
In the big glass house, still dripping, children in mourning looked at marvelous pictures.
A door banged, and in the village square the little boy waved his arms, understood by weather vanes and cocks on steeples everywhere, in the bursting shower.
Madame **** installed a piano in the Alps. Mass and first communions were celebrated at the hundred thousand altars of the cathedral.

Now what exactly does this mean? certainly we can discern a collection of images... but what does it "mean". And yet... like music... there is an emotive "meaning"... something allusive hinted at.

Or what of this?

`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

Again this is on the surface "meaningless"... and yet it hints at much through sounds and allusions.

Whether it's Joyce, Lewis Carroll, Dr. Seuss, or Dan Brown you need to understand language and be able to read to extract anything from their books.

And you imagine that you need not understand the language of art or music? The very young child, like most animals, cannot understand a picture of anything. They cannot process the imagery on a 2-dimensional surface as representing something 3-dimensional... they have not developed a symbolic language so that they can recognize that this:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5295/5418316101_dccd2ce343.jpg

represents a boy sitting at a desk reading.

Beyond the rudimentary development of visual "language" works af art employ a great array of artistic languages that must be understood if the work is to be fully understood. We might take this painting for example:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5292/5418929292_bb794fa8c4_b.jpg

Now certainly you may recognize the images represented... but the meaning is far more complex than this. In this particular instance, the artist has represented a large number of Netherlandish folk-sayings from the time. Without a grasp of these there is no way of "getting" the meaning of a visual work. This is no different from a work of literature, such as Pope's satire, The Dunciad. Without some foreknowledge of the persons and things being satirized only a partial meaning can be grasped at best.

You don't need to know anything to enjoy art or music. Both orthodox and abstract art can appeal to you by their use of colors and shapes alone. The same with music.

And such enjoyment is no different from the enjoyment taken by the baby who enjoys listening to his mother's voice reading a story he does not understand or even our enjoyment in hearing the flow and cadence of poem in a language foreign to us.

[My2cents]

I think writers don't bother correcting misinterpretations of their stuff in the spirit of any publicity is better than none.

After all, to be misinterpreted is to be read and readership and all that it can bring (fame, riches, acclaim, immortality), ultimately, is what every writer craves.

[stlukesguild]

Not amazing at all. It's common sense. I'm not saying that there isn't a lot to know about them.

A caveman could listen to an electric guitar and enjoy the sound it makes without knowing what the hell an electric guitar is or how it works.

The same thing with a painting. He may not know what a painting is portraying, for example, or he may not know what exactly a painting is, but he can still find the colors and shapes aesthetically pleasing.

You are speaking of taking a pleasure in a portion of something... of which you have little or no understanding as a whole. Liking the sound made by a particular instrument or a certain color has nothing to do with understanding the work as a whole. By the same token, if someone were to read two different poems to me in Italian I might find one far more pleasurable than another based solely upon the sound and form and cadence... but the poem I like may be nothing more than a child's nursery rhyme.

I certainly cannot gain any deeper appreciation or even begin to get at the "meaning" of a medieval chant or Renaissance madrigal without understanding the formal musical language. Only with experience will my opinions or admiration begin to have any merit.

Again, the question of "meaning" confuses the purpose of art... even literature as art. The "meaning" of a poem or story is not merely defined by the images and actions conjured by the words any more than the "meaning" of a painting is limited to what the artist has represented with lines, color, and value. What does this "mean"?

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5294/5418409963_4d2d566674_z.jpg

I know what... and who... it represents. But what it "means"... what others have seen in it... is surely far more than merely a woman sitting before a landscape.

By the same token, what does this "mean"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6txOvK-mAk

The work is commonly known as the the Moonlight Sonata... yet this very title was not the composer's own. It has been interpreted in any number of different way by different performers each of whom saw something different in it. Are we to assume that the composer's interpretation would have been the last word on the piece had it been recorded? Stravinsky performed many of his own compositions... and quite often there are other better performances.

A writer may write a story. He or she has a mastery of the mechanics of writing: the formal structure of the story... the manner in which the narrative unfolds and is revealed to the reader... the choice of language (rich and voluminous or tightly constructed with a crystalline prose. But what about the meaning? Some artist certainly intend to convey a clear message... but a good deal of art lacks such eternal purpose. Even that with such clear purpose attains something more if it is to survive as art. If all Dicken's has to say is "poverty is bad" certainly he didn't need to invent such a wealth of characters and put them through such narrative developments to get his point across. Ultimately his novels are open to far more interpretations and the meaning lies in the experience itself. The goal of art isn't to convey some simple end "meaning" or definition... the goal isn't coming to the end and getting it... the goal or meaning lies in the experience itself... as it does with life.

[JCamilo]

Ultimate argument of logic

http://www.tobacco-news.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Smoking-marijuana.jpg

[Alexander III]

Ultimate argument of logic

http://www.tobacco-news.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Smoking-marijuana.jpg


Hehe I think that's marijuana not a cigar :D

Nonetheless great picture it perfectly explains what I attempted to say before, the picture does it much better than my scribble however.

[cyberbob]

But when you say that a baby can like a nursery rhyme because of the sound of his mother's voice then you're using your auditory senses. A baby cannot read, his mother has to translate text into sound, and writing becomes instructions to transform text into a senosory experience. It's the same as a baby book full of pictures. He may not care about or get the story, but the colorful pictures appeal to his vision.

That is why writing is inevitably different. It's instructions for thought to be turned into sensory experiences. Whether it goes on in your head, using your imagination, or using sounds and pictures to do the work. Writing itself never appeals to the senses. The mother doesn't need a book if she has the story memorized and the baby book doesn't need words to draw illustrations.

You can use any other sense as an example. A book can describe how something feels, tastes, or smells. It's possible to stick little pieces of fabric to a book for tactile sense, put food to taste, or a perfume to smell.

[cyberbob]

In the case of your italian poems, someone is reading them to you. You have no appreciation for their substance, just their sound since you don't know italian. It might as well be a random sequence of sounds that happen to be pleasurable!

And when you say you need to know about musical structure to gain a DEEPER appreciation, I agree. But you don't need to know anything about musical structure to have a basic appreciation. Anyone can enjoy music without knowing what it is. No one can enjoy reading without first developing a skill since no one is born with the ability to read.

I'm afraid I've I've delved too deep into the neuroscience of art and have lost most of you. I'm not trying to say that sensory art is inferior to writing. Nor am I saying that the two are completely seperate, because they are virtually inseperable. And I'm not saying that writing is usually as simple as A=B (though it can be).

[JCamilo]

But when you say that a baby can like a nursery rhyme because of the sound of his mother's voice then you're using your auditory senses. A baby cannot read, his mother has to translate text into sound, and writing becomes instructions to transform text into a senosory experience. It's the same as a baby book full of pictures. He may not care about or get the story, but the colorful pictures appeal to his vision.

That is why writing is inevitably different. It's instructions for thought to be turned into sensory experiences. Whether it goes on in your head, using your imagination, or using sounds and pictures to do the work. Writing itself never appeals to the senses. The mother doesn't need a book if she has the story memorized and the baby book doesn't need words to draw illustrations.

You can use any other sense as an example. A book can describe how something feels, tastes, or smells. It's possible to stick little pieces of fabric to a book for tactile sense, put food to taste, or a perfume to smell.

I thought vision is a sense. I would like also to tell the publishig houses who do a lot of work trying to find paper, fonts, colors, etc that appease more vision or touch that they should not.

Plus, oral storytelling is not the same experience as reading, so the mother who have it is actually closer to music than literature...

Again, your argument fails with the premisse: someone who does not read is not like someone who listens and enjoy music without understanding it. It is like someone who does not hear music.

[stlukesguild]

In the case of your italian poems, someone is reading them to you. You have no appreciation for their substance, just their sound since you don't know italian. It might as well be a random sequence of sounds that happen to be pleasurable!

Obviously I could read the poems myself and find a degree of pleasure in the sounds, structure, rhymes, etc... and yet not understand the poem as a whole, my opinion of which may change drastically based upon my greater understanding. How is this different from your analogy of music or art? You speak of being entranced by colors or shapes or sounds without a need for a greater understanding. But it is quite likely that you will discover with a greater grasp of the language of art or music that some of what once immediately appealed to you will with experience and knowledge appear trite or superficial. The human being may take pleasure in any number of experiences... any thing seen, heard, touched, smelt. A flower, a sunset, a face, a rugged mountainside, the song of a bird, the scent of the rose. But these are not "ART". Art employs an abstraction... a symbolic language to represent something. The painter employs such abstractions as much as the poet or the novelist. Music and art may have an added advantage over literature in that they employ the senses of sight or sound directly... they immediately appeal to our sight or hearing... while writing (and here I'll exclude the oral tradition and the notion of the visual layout of a text) can only allude to the senses. This does not mean that art or music or dance or film, etc... are any less abstract... any less dependent upon the audience's grasp of the language employed.

[stlukesguild]

someone who does not read is not like someone who listens and enjoy music without understanding it. It is like someone who does not hear music.

Exactly.

[stlukesguild]

I'm afraid I've I've delved too deep into the neuroscience of art and have lost most of you.

That is indeed an understatement. The neuroscience of art?:shocked::out::sosp:

[Alexander III]

I'm afraid I've I've delved too deep into the neuroscience of art and have lost most of you.

That is indeed an understatement. The neuroscience of art?:shocked::out::sosp:

sometimes it's just best to let it be...let it be...let it be...

[cyberbob]

I'm afraid I've I've delved too deep into the neuroscience of art and have lost most of you.

That is indeed an understatement. The neuroscience of art?:shocked::out::sosp:

Yeah. Art is a scientific phenomenon like religion and morality. Animals don't have it (at least not in the same sense) so it's clearly the product of our very complex brains.

Traditionally, morality has been considered to be beyond the scope of science because one cant find definite answers. Art is similar in this way since it's often considered subjective.

So I want to know first how do we define art and also are there any definite answers that we can find about it.

Obviously art is too complex for humans to ever understand it perfectly. Like food, some art is an acquired taste influenced by culture and experience and some is more easily picked up.

But like with food, can we form general guidelines about good art? Most people can't eat rotten food, can we have rotten art?

[JCamilo]

You are very confused.

[cyberbob]

And you're frivolous.

Do you think art is magic?

It's a very complex series of interactions in our brain. It has a scientific basis and I just want to understand more about it.

There is no right food (to quote Sam Harris) but we can still predict what will taste good and what won't. There is no right morality but we know some can be bad ( i.e. being cruel). Are there any truths about art which most people can agree on?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I'm freakin' out, man.

[JCamilo]

Yes, I am frivolous. I would quote Oscar Wilde about only kinds wanting to look like addults all the time, but quoting Oscar Wilde is obviously harsh.

Meanwhile, I phone called the Louvre. My brain will be placed there soon. They will burst little eletric waves, so It is art.

[cyberbob]

Is an airplane just electric waves? Obviously not, but no one would doubt that we need complex brains to create one.

Like I said, frivolous.

[kelby_lake]

And you're frivolous.

Do you think art is magic?

It's a very complex series of interactions in our brain. It has a scientific basis and I just want to understand more about it.

There is no right food (to quote Sam Harris) but we can still predict what will taste good and what won't. There is no right morality but we know some can be bad ( i.e. being cruel). Are there any truths about art which most people can agree on?

Read about aesthetics. Here's a Wiki article to start you off: :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesthetics#What_is_.22art.3F.22

[stlukesguild]

JCamillo... certainly Cyberbob is presenting nothing new. The old French Academy tried to quantify art and present an objective scientific measure by which one might rank artists... and presumably predict the probably success of a new artist. There were numerical measures for categories ranging from color, line, value to composition, emotion, originality, etc... Not surprisingly, the French master, Poussin, came out better ranked than artists such as Rembrandt (poor colorist), Rubens (excessive display of emotion and eroticism), and Vermeer (who was rather minor all around).:lol:

[JCamilo]

I am amazed by the confusion, I mean, Science can really study anything - but Science is not what they study. Science is not an animal, biologist do not define how they work, they just study and explain.

Of course, science can help to understand art (albeit all he is talking is the effect of art in the brain, which is no different from the effect of Scarlett Johanson -Meggan Fox sandwich). Linguistic is science. There is antropological and socological studies on the effect of art in society. But that is obviously not art, which study is a Philosophical field (like Morals)... But now, art is a brain wave, an airplane not, but you need it... Confused a lot...

[First thoughts]

A lot of you seem to believe the same as me; an artist loses the right to know exactly what their work's about the moment they allow somebody else to see it.

I think a lot of people deliberately leave their work open to many interpretations; author's such as Murakami and Kerouac have a particular knack for making things feel profound, without having to make it immediately obvious why.

Other authors instead aim to lead the reader towards a particular interpretation. Meticulously thought out metaphors, subtle hints and references are used to try to lead the reader to a conclusion. It is not however a failure on the author's part if the reader understands it as something else. Different people with different experiences and different imaginations leading them in different directions are inevitably going to see different things.

Thus the question of whether a cigar is just a cigar is a somewhat moot point; a cigar can be whatever the reader believes it to be.

The only problem I do have is with people interpreting things towards their own benefit or trying to tell others what to see. This becomes a problem with politicians or fascists or anyone else holding up a work of art in support of their beliefs. A work of art shouldn't be able to justify anything. Art doesn't have to be moral - people can see it as anything they like - but this doesn't make the author immoral, and he has grounds to protest at being used for a cause he doesn't believe in. It's also all too regularly a problem in education. People are often told what a work of art is about rather than how to work out what it's about for themselves.

Anyway, that’s just what I think.

[My2cents]

Though I wouldn't go so far as to say that art is science and vice versa, I would say that a scientist who lacks intuition and creativity is just as handicapped as a literary artist who lacks rigorous work habits and a discerning eye free of biases.

[cyberbob]

Woah, I'm not trying to quantify art at all. That's as misguided as quantifying intelligence with IQ.

There are many valid forms of art (like there's many good foods) and they can't just be ranked arbitrarily unless you pick a certain criteria (like ranking food by sweetness or intelligence by calculating ability) and even then that's sketchy.

Like I said, art is too complex to ever understand perfectly, which is basically what quantifying it would mean. However, neuroscience can try to answer general questions about how our brains react to art and what its biological purpose (why did humans evolve the ability to make art?) might be.

To say that morality and art are completely district from science is naive. Anyway this conversation has strayed WAY off-topic and a subject like this belongs in the Serious Discussion or Phil Lit sections.

[JCamilo]

Phisiology explains how the body reacts to the pratice of sports. It is not sports. Neuroscience can tell how we react to food taste, smell. It is not food. They may study the reaction of a brain during a creative process, but this is not studying art. Do not confund everything.

And nobody said Art and Morality is completely district from Science. I said the disciplines that study both are not scientific disciplines. Aesthetics and Ethics are philosophical disciplines, not scientific. (You may still have scientific disciplines who study the effect of it on society, neuroscience does not study Art, but biology, more specifically nervous system. Antropology does not study morality, they study society and the effects of morality on that society, etc). You may have been thinking something, but just like it was said, language causes confusion and you are giving the wrong names to the cow.

Therefore, I ask you to deal with my ultimate argument of Logic.

[cyberbob]

Did I say science was art? No!

Aesthetics and ethics can be studied from a scientific AND philosophic perspective. Interdisciplinary studies happen all the time, you twit. Darwin's Dangerous Idea is by Dan Dennett is a book on a scientific theory by a philosopher from a philosophical perspective. There's dozens of philosophic books discussing scientific ideas and vice versa.

I'm saying science can study the biological purpose of art, WHY our brains react to certain art in certain ways, and questions like this. They're general questions. Science will never say something as specific as "our brains are programmed to think mystery books from the Golden Age of Mystery were the best."

This discussion has strayed WAY too far and since you're intent on contradicting everything I say, I'll stop responding now. If you want to continue our discussion make a thread in Serious Discussion section. Good day, sir.

[Drkshadow03]

Phisiology explains how the body reacts to the pratice of sports. It is not sports. Neuroscience can tell how we react to food taste, smell. It is not food. They may study the reaction of a brain during a creative process, but this is not studying art. Do not confund everything.

And nobody said Art and Morality is completely district from Science. I said the disciplines that study both are not scientific disciplines. Aesthetics and Ethics are philosophical disciplines, not scientific. (You may still have scientific disciplines who study the effect of it on society, neuroscience does not study Art, but biology, more specifically nervous system. Antropology does not study morality, they study society and the effects of morality on that society, etc). You may have been thinking something, but just like it was said, language causes confusion and you are giving the wrong names to the cow.

Therefore, I ask you to deal with my ultimate argument of Logic.

Wow, that's some crazy interpretation of Moby Dick. ;)