"It is precisely those artists and writers..."
"It is precisely those artists and writers who are most inclined to think of their art as the manifestation of their personality who are in fact the most in bondage to public taste." ― Simone Weil, Selected Essays, 1934-1943
I came across this quote a few weeks ago, and it stuck with me. The most impressive writers are the ones who are able to step outside of themselves and tell stories that aren't their own and convey ideas that transcend culture or are at odds with their own. At a glance, this appears to be less common in songs (lyrics) than books and movies (scripts). Not sure about forms like painting, photography, etc. I couldn't find the full essay, so there's a lot of context missing, but it could lead to an interesting discussion. Thoughts?
I think all art is a manifestation of the artists' personality. It doesn't matter what the art is or how popular or unpopular the art may be...writing about ideas that are anathema to oneself is not separating those ideas from the self, it is simply working out those ideas in the first place.
I think.
I think all art is a manifestation of the artists' personality. It doesn't matter what the art is or how popular or unpopular the art may be...writing about ideas that are anathema to oneself is not separating those ideas from the self, it is simply working out those ideas in the first place.
I think.
I don't think it's a manifestation of their personality but rather their ability to perceive. They're not necessarily working out ideas. Sometimes (perhaps often) those ideas are already understood by the artist, and in other cases, the artist may not understand them at all but goes with the flow anyway.
And in some cases, they may just want to tell a story others can enjoy without giving much thought to anything beyond that.
T.S. Eliot:
"Poetry is not a turning loose of emotion, but an escape from emotion; it is not the expression of personality, but an escape from personality. But, of course, only those who have personality and emotions know what it means to want to escape from these things."
Sent from my Pixel 7a using Tapatalk
I think all art is a manifestation of the artists' personality. It doesn't matter what the art is or how popular or unpopular the art may be...writing about ideas that are anathema to oneself is not separating those ideas from the self, it is simply working out those ideas in the first place.
I think.
I tend to agree. Ezra Pound did numerous translations and inhabited the voice of Provencal poets, but he always seemed to be expressing himself.
On the other hand, Flaubert:
"The author, in his work, must be like God in the Universe, present everywhere and visible nowhere."
Who knows?
Sent from my Pixel 7a using Tapatalk
It's not possible to remove the individual from his or her creation. The question, I think, is how much they're able to see beyond their own subjectivity.
It's not possible to remove the individual from his or her creation. The question, I think, is how much they're able to see beyond their own subjectivity.
Even though few agree today with Wimsatt and Beardsley's Intentional Fallacy, I believe it does still have relevance. The New Criticism tried to completely erase the intentions of the artist from the work of art. In other words, trust the art not the artist. Basically, they did attempt to remove the artist from from the art
But how do you interpret, say, Emily Dickinson's poetry without some knowledge of her life or some knowledge of the era during which she wrote.
But I also think of my old Shakespeare professor who said the best thing about teaching Shakespeare was you needed to turn to the plays because we really don't know much about Shakespeare's life.
Robert Frost was chased down by an audience member after he read "Fire and Ice" to ask him what the poem meant. He simply repeated the poem.
Sent from my Pixel 7a using Tapatalk
But I also think of my old Shakespeare professor who said the best thing about teaching Shakespeare was you needed to turn to the plays because we really don't know much about Shakespeare's life.
There are realities about the human condition that cut across time and place.
Robert Frost was chased down by an audience member after he read "Fire and Ice" to ask him what the poem meant. He simply repeated the poem.
Love this story.
It is impossible to separate the man from the art... to attempt to do so is folly.
One, thinking they can deconstruct Artistic endeavor like a receipt for quiche, entirely risks missing the point... 'Art'.
the entire premise gives me pause to reflect on the tomorrow tomorrow tomorrow scene from Birdman.
It is impossible to separate the man from the art... to attempt to do so is folly.
One, thinking they can deconstruct Artistic endeavor like a receipt for quiche, entirely risks missing the point... 'Art'.
I think some artists' intentions are straightforward and others want to leave more room for interpretation. Just like we can't take the artist out of the equation, it's also impossible to remove the feelings of the person experiencing that art, but at the same time, there are objective qualities to art and it isn't whatever you want it to be.
As I see it, it's not so much about separating the artist from his or her art; it's that the best artists are the ones whose creations are less personal. Not the intention of their work (though sometimes, maybe) but their ability to understand and tap into things that exist outside of themselves and have little or nothing to do with their own lives. This isn't a rule or anything like that, but for the most part, I think it's true.
It is impossible to separate the man from the art... to attempt to do so is folly.
One, thinking they can deconstruct Artistic endeavor like a receipt for quiche, entirely risks missing the point... 'Art'.
What do we know of Sophocles? Aristophanes? Anonymous?
Sent from my Pixel 7a using Tapatalk
T.S. Eliot:
"Poetry is not a turning loose of emotion, but an escape from emotion; it is not the expression of personality, but an escape from personality. But, of course, only those who have personality and emotions know what it means to want to escape from these things."
I have never used it as an outlet or a means of expressing myself. I just dance. I just put my feet in the air and move them around. Dancing is a sweat job.
Fred Astaire
Anonymous
Sent from my Pixel 7a using Tapatalk
'It is like a Finger pointing a way to the Moon... Don't concentrate on that Finger, or you will miss all that Heavenly glory'
B.L.
I think some artists' intentions are straightforward and others want to leave more room for interpretation.
I think... having been a designer/art director/creative director for more than 35 years, that there is an easily defined distinction between the two polar opposites you describe.
Art, by nature, is ambiguous and interpretational... EVEN IF that creator is desperately trying to procreate idealism and without this interpretation, great Art isn't really possible.
Art with 'straightforward' intentions is... Decoration.
I hope you can see the clear difference between Art and Decoration.
most everyone benefits from a daily ass wiping
if only to clean away our own polution
I think... having been a designer/art director/creative director for more than 35 years, that there is an easily defined distinction between the two polar opposites you describe.
Art, by nature, is ambiguous and interpretational... EVEN IF that creator is desperately trying to procreate idealism and without this interpretation, great Art isn't really possible.
Art with 'straightforward' intentions is... Decoration.
I hope you can see the clear difference between Art and Decoration.
It's only interpretational by nature because individuals experience it, but there's more to it than that. Are you saying that if an artist tries to convey a specific message that it's just "decoration? If so, I disagree. Even works that are intentionally ambiguous can have an underlying meaning. I couldn't even begin to name all the songs I've loved over the years that I never really got. Then, one day, a lightbulb goes on, and it's like, "Wow!" If you just dismiss an artist's intentions, you'll miss out on how clever some of their work is. Yeah, subjective interpretation exists, but there are also shared human experiences, and we can't do away with those.
Norm Macdonald on meeting Bob Dylan. It fits here more than the music or comedy threads.
When people say ‘surreal’ they mean ‘real’, it’s just most of your life is not very real, just repetition and routine. I went to his house and I met him. Only musician I’d ever met was one of my best friends, Billy Joe Shaver, and I told Dylan and he laughed and said he loved Billy Joe. Then he left and came back with an old vinyl of ‘Honky Tonk Heroes’ and put it on and we listened to it, all the way through, and didn’t talk. Then he talked to me at length. At length.
When Bob Dylan speaks, his words seem chosen long ago, his sentences are spare, and he looks right at you, and his countenance is stone. He spoke to me for many hours over two days. There was no alcohol or drugs consumed. He was interested only in writing. I remember wishing I had secretly recorded him, and I remember trying as hard as I could to remember every word he said. I remember he talked over and over about verbs and about ‘verbifying’, how anything could be ‘verbified’. He asked me my favorite book of the Bible and I said Job, and he said his favorite was Ecclesiastes. He then told me that the book of Job I was familiar with was not the original, and then he told me the original.
I began to notice his speech was naturally rich with imagery, and that listening to him had a mesmerizing effect. I noticed when looking at his face while listening to his words that it was like looking at an impressionistic painting. I cannot repeat any of what I heard that evening, but he invited me to stay the night and we ate dinner in silence. A girl cooked a beef stew and there were three other men, who I later learned were musicians. When Bob Dylan retired for the evening, I spoke freely with the three men. They took me to a recording studio in a guest house and I listened to them play. I asked them for their favorite Dylan stories. They told me, and the night happened and i didn’t sleep. I was very unknown at the time and asked why Bob Dylan had summoned me for this visit. One of the men told me.
The next morning, when Dylan reappeared, the big house seemed full again. He told me he wanted me to meet someone. He took me to the guard shack and I met the guard and Dylan told the old man to tell me ‘the story’. He did and it was very funny. While the old man was telling his funny story, Bob Dylan kept looking right at me and he was laughing hard and I was too. It was very funny. We went back to the house and Dylan poured two cups of black coffee and we each drank coffee. And that is when Bob Dylan began speaking about being a writer.
He said most ‘writers’ were what he called ‘stenographers’. He would put a record on his player and have me listen to it. He would have me silently read a passage from a classic book. Then Bob Dylan would explain why this was not writing, why it was stenography. One piece of fiction he had me read was one of my favorites. I saw that I had been wrong about one of my favorite pieces of fiction. Bob Dylan showed me how I had been deceived. I told him that I understood, but I did not, and I lied to Bob Dylan.
A week later, I understood, and phoned him and explained and he laughed. I don’t want to say what Bob Dylan said to me but one thing that he gave me permission to tell my friends was, ‘Don’t be fooled by typists.'”
scrolling cultures include quick swipes and snap judgement
nothing clicks like an immediate impession
ain't got no time for pondering and a'wondering about other points of view when you itch for the next one
the rhythm of dylan words are his sheet music
instrumental to mentally strumming guitar however you read 'em
typically delivering stern or graphic keyboard messages
that Dylan story is amazing
It's only interpretational by nature because individuals experience it, but there's more to it than that. Are you saying that if an artist tries to convey a specific message that it's just "decoration? If so, I disagree. Even works that are intentionally ambiguous can have an underlying meaning. I couldn't even begin to name all the songs I've loved over the years that I never really got. Then, one day, a lightbulb goes on, and it's like, "Wow!" If you just dismiss an artist's intentions, you'll
Some art can very well be didactic. Think of children's books: The Giving Tree, Heather Has Two Mommies, for example. The messages are straightforward.
Having read poetry for over 50 years, I hate modern didactic poetry. I don't want to read poems bemoaning the fate of George Floyd (even if I care about what happened to George Floyd).
My favorite definition of poetry is news that stays news. Is poetry ambiguous? Sure. Language is ambiguous. Just read Frost's good fences make good neighbors. Does it mean that keeping distance between us is necessary? Or does it mean that working together building a wall makes us neighborly?
With my classes, I can spend an hour on the first page of Moby-Dick and a half hour on Willams's The Red Wheelbarrow, which, for me, is about the way we see the world. For my students it's about a red wheelbarrow.
See Keats's negative capability:
"I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason . . . ."
Can we dwell in ambiguity?
Sent from my Pixel 7a using Tapatalk
