Terminology question: the "abstract-didactic continuum"

[Ragnar Freund]

gone.

[naneyf]

I agree with it,it is the same to read a book.It is impossible for me to understand a deep novel,so a pithier term or an interpretation will be very useful to me.Understanding a novel what the writer wanted to tell the reader is important.^_^

[OrphanPip]

When describing literary and artistic works, is there a name for the continuum that has at one endpoint works that are very didactic, where the artist's intent and message are very clear and not open for interpretation (e.g. Atlas Shrugged) and at the other endpoint works that are so abstract that practically any interpretation can be given, e.g. a painting that consists of assorted triangles and nothing more? I assume we can call it the "abstract-didactic continuum", but I was wondering whether there's a pithier term.

I'm not sure a term would be useful, because I'm not sure such a continuum exists. It implies that there is an antithetical distinction between abstraction and didacticism, but we can find works which are not the least bit abstract that are also non-didactic. For example, a newspaper article is neither didactic (ideally) nor abstract in its conception. I would also disagree with the distinction that didactic texts are necessarily clear in their message. I'm inclined to think of a lot of the novels of Virginia Woolf, which often have politically and philosophically didactic ideas behind them, but the message is not clear because of Woolf's narrative technique.

We have to also consider what abstraction means in aesthetic terms. I think it's probably a little too simplistic to look at something like a painting by Mondrian and say that practically any interpretation is possible. These kind of works tend to be self-reflexive and call into question the basic principles of aesthetic judgement. In text we can look at the dadaist writings of Gertrude Stein, which raise questions about the function of language, especially in textual form. Because of how vague they are they are broader in the specific aspects of interpretation, but that doesn't quite equate to being open to any interpretation. After all, you can't read Tender Buttons and argue it is an allegory of the American Civil War.

Edit: Of course, if you mean works which are very simplistic and unoriginal, and thus invite little critical attention, versus ones which provide multiple avenues for critical analysis. I think we have terms for that already: bad and good art.

[Ragnar Freund]

Gone.

[OrphanPip]

A newspaper article is not a work of art or literature, so I wouldn't count that.

It can be, especially if it is in essay form, like an editorial, which may be didactic, or may be attempting to simply elucidate a topic. The essay is recognized as an artistic form.



As to your other examples, perhaps the wording I used was inaccurate, but my question comes down to this: how open is the question, What did the writer/artist mean by that?

If the answer is, Oh, that's quite obvious! then it belongs in one end of the continuum. If the answer is, Multiple and widely-varied explanations are possible, then it's on the other end of the continuum.

But that brings up the problem of the intentional fallacy, what the author meant isn't really the most important aspect of a text aesthetically. It also assumes that the purpose of art is a message or argument of sorts, when it might simply be about delighting an audience.

We might also ask whether multiple interpretations can come out of a single intention. After all, we might debate how effectively that message is made, or what cultural assumptions lie behind, or the historical context, or how it fits into a larger literary discourse on the subject.

[cafolini]

Anything is didactic, tacit or explicit. An amoral or apolitical statement is impossible.

[Alexander III]

An amoral or apolitical statement is impossible.

The sky is blue. The river is cool, and I see David smiling.

http://i403.photobucket.com/albums/pp117/vb278607/Wait-You-mad-bro.jpg

[JBI]

The sky is blue. The river is cool, and I see David smiling.

http://i403.photobucket.com/albums/pp117/vb278607/Wait-You-mad-bro.jpg

Didn't you know, writing in that format shows that you are within the constraints of language - your are molded by your adherence to the codes of grammar and spelling - a slave to the Bourgeois guardians of English who control and exert power.

[cafolini]

The sky is blue. The river is cool, and I see David smiling.

http://i403.photobucket.com/albums/pp117/vb278607/Wait-You-mad-bro.jpg

You like the sky, the cool river and David enough to relate to it. Knowing you as much as I do, you have to have an opinion about them, and in that relationship you choose not to specify, you are just as political an moral as with any other you speak about more or even less. Besides, in your interaction with me, you are making an undeniable political and moral statement, whether you like it or not. You don't live in vaccuo.

[Alexander III]

You like the sky, the cool river and David enough to relate to it. Knowing you as much as I do, you have to have an opinion about them, and in that relationship you choose not to specify, you are just as political an moral as with any other you speak about more or even less. Besides, in your interaction with me, you are making an undeniable political and moral statement, whether you like it or not. You don't live in vaccuo.

I am going to have to break down your post and answer bit by bit here just so that we can re-cap what you wrote -

You like the sky, the cool river and David enough to relate to it.

Now what? Why do I like the sky? My statement said "The sky is blue" - is the color blue a byword for like and enjoyment, last time I checked when someone says "The sky is blue" my first thought is not "WOW he must like the sky" It is always "the color of the sky is blue, yes you are correct"

Why do I relate to david and the river? The river temperature is cool, let us assume a solid 17 degrees Celsius. Does this mean that if I said the "river is warm" instead of cool I would have not been able to relate to the river. What if David was frowning, does this mean that I do not relate to David? Heck, who is David? I don't know, but you seem to do since you know I relate to him?

You do see that everything you said , is product of your imagination and not the text? Can we agree on that?

Knowing you as much as I do, you have to have an opinion about them, and in that relationship you choose not to specify, you are just as political an moral as with any other you speak about more or even less.

Ok this I am not sure how to answer. Mostly because I have no idea what you are saying. Though I am sure this is my reading problem rather than your writing problem. But Let me give it a go anyways.

Firstly, you know me? Thats a big word for a guy who you have read 3 internet posts from. But hey to each his own. Maybe you do know me. Why is there a relationship, what word in my text lead you to believe there is any form of relationship. What if David is just a smiling statue? you can't say he is not one from the text.

Ok Tell me then instead of saying " everything is moral and political" - and when I give you a statement which has no morality and politics in it you just reply by saying "no no, trust me it is moral and political"

I want to trust you I really do, but throw me a bone and tell me in what way is my statement moral or political? Tell me this and I will trust you from here on out.

[cafolini]

On top of it, the pitiful thing is that you think you are purely objective and you don't have to relate to anything in order to observe it. And that you wish it were true, frankly, is extremely funny. You sound like Ayn Rand on skates moved unconsciously by the 47 or 53 motors of Aristotle. Have fun, however you like to think of it.

[JBI]

On top of it, the pitiful thing is that you think you are purely objective and you don't have to relate to anything in order to observe it. And that you wish it were true, frankly, is extremely funny. You sound like Ayn Rand on skates moved unconsciously by the 47 or 53 motors of Aristotle. Have fun, however you like to think of it.

Fine, lets just assume from your writing you are a fascist neo-nazi.

After all, look how polemic and violent you are with your words! no wonder, it is showing your middle class snobbishness and disdain for minorities, "unread" people, and poor people. Oh, how moralizing you are with your insistence that The sky is Blue implies an author background.

Seriously, I know the theory you base your ideas from back to front even if you do not. It's the same theory that led Helen Cixous to tell women to break out of the confines of a male patriarchal language - all and good, but it assumes too much, and the main flaw in that argument is a) can language be traced, and b) what exactly is the intent.

As for apolitics in language - well, Foucault would argue too there aren't any ways around it, but he would also say that challenging the rational order by presenting things as apolitical undermines power-authorities, whereas judging things the way you do reinforces them. Just some food for thought, you may want to put down the theory a little as it leads to all sorts of ridiculous, unfriendly conclusions.

[john7]

Only till my natural death could I tell which of what I have been doing is right or wrong, so now I have to try to do well in everything, and then wait to die a natural death.
http://images.thebestexercisebikes.net/images/smile.gif

[cafolini]

Fine, lets just assume from your writing you are a fascist neo-nazi.

After all, look how polemic and violent you are with your words! no wonder, it is showing your middle class snobbishness and disdain for minorities, "unread" people, and poor people. Oh, how moralizing you are with your insistence that The sky is Blue implies an author background.

Seriously, I know the theory you base your ideas from back to front even if you do not. It's the same theory that led Helen Cixous to tell women to break out of the confines of a male patriarchal language - all and good, but it assumes too much, and the main flaw in that argument is a) can language be traced, and b) what exactly is the intent.

As for apolitics in language - well, Foucault would argue too there aren't any ways around it, but he would also say that challenging the rational order by presenting things as apolitical undermines power-authorities, whereas judging things the way you do reinforces them. Just some food for thought, you may want to put down the theory a little as it leads to all sorts of ridiculous, unfriendly conclusions.

You figured me out. I never thought it would be possible for a brain like yours. Miracle!!!