Talents for writers or readers?

Oftentimes or for eternity we think to be writers one needs great talents. Barely or only occasionally do we mull over the fact that readers need not in the least equal sometimes more talents. For today we live in a world wherein values have undergone a tremendous shift, and we a piece of art more readers driven than writers driven. To put it differently, the same stuff can undergo a variety of interpretations. The Gita for instance has enduringly undergone so many interpretations. So are Shakespeare, Kafka and the Bible. Is it not a world of readers –centric?
This idea may startle you in point of fact, for today more and more scholars or literature-pundits have commonly coalesced to agree that the notion of consumerism is widespread not only in the world of economics but also in religions, literature, economics and the like.

I leave the rest to all, thinking that what the rest may have to say on this point.

I agree, producers in general (not just artists and writers) are concerned with the consumer (or reader) and whether the consumer will be able to make sense and use the product, be it art or something else. This is why television shows and series are largely self-referential, you can appreciate the show by just watching it, and having watched a few previous episodes of the particular show helps. You don't need cultural knowledge. Also why movies are frequently made into trilogies, the content then isn't new and demanding of the consumer/movie goer.
It's an interesting point when the culture and the economic markets of society become "consumer-centric" and "reader-centric". You don't feel movies, books or art in general is made for it's own sake, just being creative expression by the creator (which I think is ironically what often makes good art in the first place). In today's society and culture a reader would need a lot of talent to read "the classics", because much of them are deeply cultural and contain much knowledge about times, places and myths which aren't apart of today's consumer-centric culture. I am not sure this increases interpretations, I feel as if some things come with a prepackaged interpretation.

I'm not sure yet what to think and expect of all this, but as a sociology student I do find it interesting :)

All I want to put forth here is understanding the text often times demand greater talents than even creating them, for when the reader reads a piece of art he must immediately become accustomed to a new circumstance. Whereas as the writer could have already versed with what he sets forth, the reader has yet to customize himself. Looking from this stand point I infer that the reader who can read a text is not in the least less intelligent than the writer who composed the piece.

The fact however is something different than generally taken. Most readers can not comprehend, or understand partly only. And each in his turn makes or derives a meaning or interpretation of his own depending upon the level of his ability to grasp the meaning of it.

It is rather a complicated issue, yet to delimit it in terms of our understanding all I maintain here is that to interpret what the writer has to say demands of a reader greater talents than the writer himself.

I think I might of pursued a different issue, namely the production of art or literature with the reader in mind ("reader-centric" produced literature). Upon reinterpreting your posts I think some kind of "death of the author" and "birth of the reader" is the point you were following. Or just the writer knows what he writes better than the reader.

There is a challenge to reading which may be impossible, that is interpreting the intention of the author. Also the critical interpretations some readers place upon texts can be more fruitful then the author's intention.

There is one point where I think the author should be given credit, to conceive of the actual text (with whatever intention). Like thinking of an idea it always seems so simple after it's done. Duchamp for example who put a urinal in an art gallery and called it "fountain". It seems like such a simple idea, but to actually do this in a time where art was much more narrowly thought of is quite creative, interpreting the significance of the act or message behind it is important yet conceiving the message is more important.

See a flower. The idea of the planter is evaporated. The observer finds the meaning of it according to his understanding of it. I the observer is a biologist, he tries to classify or dissect it into parts. If the observer is a beautiful girl she can thread it with her imagination. Maybe someone can be indifferent to it.

A poem, or a piece of art thus can be subjected to so many interpretations depending upon the reader.

As an artist (writer, poet, painter, photographer, and playwright) I have found to my disappointment that the consumer (reader/viewer) is often lazy and unwilling to work to understand a work. This is not an elitist viewpoint but rather an empirical observation. I think it has less to do with the "talent" or the reader/viewer and more to do with his/her unwillingness to invest time to discover what may not be immediately accessible.

There is commercial-consumer oriented products that I don't even consider art. For me, art is the discovery of truth not a means by which to make a buck.

Just as I, as an artist, must work (yes, Virginia, art is work) to discover new truths (at least as I perceive them and as they are revealed to me), so too it is the responsibility of the consumer of the art to work to understand the poem or painting or film.

One gets from a piece of artwork what one brings to it.

It is not my fault as a poet if a reader does not "catch" or understand the allusions my poem contains. I must ask: why are you even bothering reading my poem if you are unwilling to dig for its meanings just as I had to put forth great effort for those truths (visions) to reveal themselves to me? A work of art is always greater than the sum of its parts.

If one wants only superficial entertainment there is plenty of pablum around for one to sleepwalk through. But if one wants to experience honest art with the same level of integrity the artist maintained on his voyage of discovery (all artistic endeavors are journeys of discovery) then (s)he must be willing to put forth effort--that may mean reading a poem or story several times or viewing a film more than once or listening to an opera or symphony a dozen times. It may also mean asking questions about nebulous parts of a work and searching for answers. Making art is making connections. Understanding art is discovering those connections. The pieces of a puzzle may be interesting in themselves but unless we spend time to put them altogether the larger picture escapes us.

Those who read a serious poem (for example) only once and walk away thinking I don't get it! receive exactly from that poem what they were willing to put into it: nothing.

The same applies to any and all art forms.

If a work of art is inaccessible to you, as the reader/viewer/listener, then you haven't put in effort enough to understand it. If you don't want to put forth the effort then seek out commercial-consumer entertainment that dumbs you down and presents to you no intellectual challenges.

I do not suggest here that art and entertainment are necessarily mutually exclusive. Of course they are not. But enjoyment--just as comprehension--is experienced on various levels.

One gets out of a work of art what one brings to it.

Here my point has little to do with the commercials. Read the Bible, for instance and interpret it. Compare yours with others' you will find differences aplenty.

Why is this? Everyone is uniquely different from every other. Your understanding of someone is considerably shaped by the upbringings of yours. Your societies, they are your parents, relatives and friends or communities all contribute to the making of the person you are. Of course your perceptions of someone is shaped by or I would choose to say, molded by some others.

That validates the point that no writer is what the rest can see. A little bit of himself and more of others that they gathered from others.

The point is future writers are market driven.

I completely agree, ctalerico.

Thank you.

I agree too.

People are so lazy these days. Even on this forum there are people who merely read for the story. I find that so sad for the auther who put such effort into it, and then you get readers that don't value your work for what it is and fail to see the real point of it or even worse, want to see a particular point where that particular point is certainly not.

Today's customer, because that's what readers, museum visitors and opera and cinema goers are, after all according to the producers, have become lazy. Everything needs to be easy. Good stuff is not shown or published, because it is not popular and so doesn't bring in enough money.

It is so hard these days to find a good play to go to, a good opera that hasn't been interpreted in a gastly modern, nothing saying way. Those modern interpretations of Shakespeare and classic pîeces of opera, I really loathe! The story is not modern, so how can you interpret it in a modern way? Those pieces have become timeless because the theme is universal, but the things that go on are totally outdated! So keep it in the same lovely old days, and don't try to update it because it doesn't work. Do not put Romeo and Juliet in the second world war, but keep it the same renaissance decor, because it is so lovely! Those modern interpretations indeed do not see the connections the writer made with his time. They make new connections, but why don't they write a new play or opera, then?
The worst I have seen so far, was a new production of Wagner's opera cycle Der Ring der Niebelungen. Something really 19th-century about someone who sells his soul to the devil and what not. Anyway, the director put the whole opera in a very technological environment (???), was complaining about the fact that the decor changes were difficult, because there was too much noice (what do you expect if you have your stage filled with iron racks, tv's, radio's etc, that all make noice when the choir moves them??) and then, the most gastly part of all, he changed the Walhalla (heaven for the germanic tribes) into Second Life, the same format as the computer/internet 'game'. I suppose, no I am sure, Wagner turns or even revolves in his grave. But then, he made it easily accessible, because people know what second life is and not what the Walhalla is. This was the biggest and most expensive production in Belgium fo the last 3 years (because the cycle consists of three operas, I think)... In two words: decastatingly sad...

It is so hard to find a good modern book with good sentences of someone who can actually write. Most books are just so empty and soulless... Really, they might be bestsellers, but honestly, why?
Or even worse, bad tv adaptations of good books! Mostly I wonder whether the script writer actually read it. Mostly he only saw the story, or sometimes apparently only heard it and forgot half and then made the rest up. Why would you do that to a book?

Then on the other side, we don't totally have to give up, because I saw that wonderful production of Cyrano de Bergérac in true style. Also the biggest production in France two years ago, but truly a pearl. And the other week, I saw the biggest production of Covent Garden in London, of Donizetti's The Girl of the Regiment, ABSOLUTELY FANTASTIC. It wa truly done as it had to be and with a lot of passion from all the singers, the choir, the director and the conductor. Absolutely waw!


The lazyness of our fellow customers and commercialism of producers try to make us all lazy. Readers and visitors do not want to learn or think anymore and no-one tells them to. But we should not give in to that. If we keep pushing long enough, we will in the end win the battle... hopefully.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiki1982

I agree too.

People are so lazy these days. Even on this forum there are people who merely read for the story. I find that so sad for the auther who put such effort into it, and then you get readers that don't value your work for what it is and fail to see the real point of it or even worse, want to see a particular point where that particular point is certainly not.

Today's customer, because that's what readers, museum visitors and opera and cinema goers are, after all according to the producers, have become lazy. Everything needs to be easy. Good stuff is not shown or published, because it is not popular and so doesn't bring in enough money.

It is so hard these days to find a good play to go to, a good opera that hasn't been interpreted in a gastly modern, nothing saying way. Those modern interpretations of Shakespeare and classic pîeces of opera, I really loathe! The story is not modern, so how can you interpret it in a modern way? Those pieces have become timeless because the theme is universal, but the things that go on are totally outdated! So keep it in the same lovely old days, and don't try to update it because it doesn't work. Do not put Romeo and Juliet in the second world war, but keep it the same renaissance decor, because it is so lovely! Those modern interpretations indeed do not see the connections the writer made with his time. They make new connections, but why don't they write a new play or opera, then?
The worst I have seen so far, was a new production of Wagner's opera cycle Der Ring der Niebelungen. Something really 19th-century about someone who sells his soul to the devil and what not. Anyway, the director put the whole opera in a very technological environment (???), was complaining about the fact that the decor changes were difficult, because there was too much noice (what do you expect if you have your stage filled with iron racks, tv's, radio's etc, that all make noice when the choir moves them??) and then, the most gastly part of all, he changed the Walhalla (heaven for the germanic tribes) into Second Life, the same format as the computer/internet 'game'. I suppose, no I am sure, Wagner turns or even revolves in his grave. But then, he made it easily accessible, because people know what second life is and not what the Walhalla is. This was the biggest and most expensive production in Belgium fo the last 3 years (because the cycle consists of three operas, I think)... In two words: decastatingly sad...

It is so hard to find a good modern book with good sentences of someone who can actually write. Most books are just so empty and soulless... Really, they might be bestsellers, but honestly, why?
Or even worse, bad tv adaptations of good books! Mostly I wonder whether the script writer actually read it. Mostly he only saw the story, or sometimes apparently only heard it and forgot half and then made the rest up. Why would you do that to a book?

Then on the other side, we don't totally have to give up, because I saw that wonderful production of Cyrano de Bergérac in true style. Also the biggest production in France two years ago, but truly a pearl. And the other week, I saw the biggest production of Covent Garden in London, of Donizetti's The Girl of the Regiment, ABSOLUTELY FANTASTIC. It wa truly done as it had to be and with a lot of passion from all the singers, the choir, the director and the conductor. Absolutely waw!


The lazyness of our fellow customers and commercialism of producers try to make us all lazy. Readers and visitors do not want to learn or think anymore and no-one tells them to. But we should not give in to that. If we keep pushing long enough, we will in the end win the battle... hopefully.

---

Henry David Thoreau once wrote that "books must be read as deliberately and reservedly as they were written."



Arthur Schopenhauer once wrote in his Aphorisms:

15

According to Herodotus, Xerxes wept at the sight of his enormous army to think that, of all these men, not one would be alive in a hundred years' time; so who cannot but weep at the sight of the thick fair catalogue to think that, of all these books, not one will be alive in tens years' time.

Just some things to think about.