Intentional Fallacy

[P_R]

Intentional fallacy, in literary criticism, addresses the assumption that the meaning intended by the author of a literary work is of primary importance. By characterizing this assumption as a "fallacy," a critic suggests that the author's intention is not important. The term is an important principle of New Criticism and was first used by W.K. Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley in their essay "The Intentional Fallacy" (1946 rev. 1954): "the design or intention of the author is neither available nor desirable as a standard for judging the success of a work of literary art." The phrase "intentional fallacy" is somewhat ambiguous, but it means "a fallacy about intent" and not "a fallacy committed on purpose."

What sayst thou ?

[equanimus]

But at the bare minimum, as a rasikan, I feel an anxiety to have covered, at the least, what the artist 'intended' to offer.
But what you "cover" is vastly different (which is an understatement) from what the artist intends. Your whole life plays a part in it, and surely, you're going to see it differently. And one must not associate all this talk as a kind of mumbo-jumbo useful only when viewing obscure films. Hardly. Take the many mainstream films which we find awful or even offensive watching them through various prisms. Do those filmmakers intend to make a film that is, say, pro-casteist or anti-feminist? Are they consciously trying to make it that way? No, it's what we see in them.

Pardon the simplistic logic (but good enough I think); if we can bash up a film for all the bad things we see in it, it's only fair we approve of the good things, no?

[P_R]

This is digressive but I will yield to it because it seems potentially enjoyable.

Do those filmmakers intend to make a film that is, say, pro-casteist or anti-feminist? Are they consciously trying to make it that way? No, it's what we see in them.
I think this takes the beholder thing too far. Most of the times it is what it is. adhuvE illainreengaLA.

Take anti-feminism a popular trend - or even fetish - in our films.
Do they intend to make an anti-feminist scene. Sure as hell they do. They don't think it is something to be queasy about. We react because we see it through our prism, granted but that does not take away that the creator "wanted" to have his hero cut a woman down to size. It didn't happen incidentally. Nor does there seem to be alternative ways of reading it.

That's why I believe the mass of the mainstream watch-and-ignore films/book which are as deep (uh oh ! baed word) as pAlAr in summertime can be brushed aside for this discussion.


I'm saying one knows close to nothing about the personal sensibilities of these filmmakers (whether it is Bala or Mani Ratnam) even when one's trying to guess whether or not it's "appropriate" to make such a remark! That is all

Yes we never know for sure. Part of the reason why we devour information about the artist about and beyond his work. Most of the times the outcome is unpleasant. Yet, we (I ?) never learn.
All the time maintaining a schizophrenic adherence that I am not using the artist's 'life' to evaluate his art. Treating with scorn others' attempts to do when I am kind of doing precisely the same.

That we will never know for sure and is always in a position only to make reasonable, clever (?) guesses means we do harbour such a question.

KGB Officer: What do you think about Josef Stalin ?
Civilian: I think what you think Sir
KGB Officer: Then it is my duty to arrest you.

So, to actually make the remark is quite impolite and unfair. But can we banish the question from within us ? Should we just take the art and run and not bother disappointing ourselves ?

Or should adopt a 'real' worldview like a முற்போக்கு எழுத்தாளர்கள் சங்கம் pamphlet, which in a bid to say that artists don't exist in vacuum and must react to the society around them makes atrocious statements like: கலைஞர்களும் மனிதர்கள் தான். அவர்கள் ஒன்றும் வானத்திலிருந்து வந்து குதித்துவிடவில்லை.

[P_R]

Pardon the simplistic logic (but good enough I think); if we can bash up a film for all the bad things we see in it, it's only fair we approve of the good things, no? Hmm...
We do approve of the good things. Has Goundamani acted in a single 'good' film ?

I don't think I got this.

[equanimus]

Do those filmmakers intend to make a film that is, say, pro-casteist or anti-feminist? Are they consciously trying to make it that way? No, it's what we see in them.
I think this takes the beholder thing too far. Most of the times it is what it is. adhuvE illainreengaLA.

Take anti-feminism a popular trend - or even fetish - in our films.
Do they intend to make an anti-feminist scene. Sure as hell they do. They don't think it is something to be queasy about. We react because we see it through our prism, granted but that does not take away that the creator "wanted" to have his hero cut a woman down to size. It didn't happen incidentally. Nor does there seem to be alternative ways of reading it.
It is what it is, PR, but still I am the one who is seeing it. The artist's consciousness is only incidental. Even with some of most literally constructed anti-feminist films, the maker might not have consciously thought of it to be so. What is literal to me is not literal to the maker. It could just be a reflection of his repressed sexuality. Or just a fetish of sorts. Obviously there's no clear line of difference. (What is consciousness anyway?) That's the equivalence I'm drawing between the unconscious layers in the creative process of bad films and good films.

And I didn't mean only the "literally constructed" anti-whatever films when I say mainstream films. What about the films in which the filmmaker doesn't consciously frame anything of that sort and is actually trying to make a sensitive film and all? There the consciousness is even more conflicting. Cheran's films for example. Are his films consciously chauvinist? (Let's just say I tell him that they are. What would be his reaction?) Probably not. Do I care? Hell, no. Some films just don't cut it for whatever reasons. Why? Is it because the filmmaker wants it to be so? No. Surely, Cheran wants his films to be sensitive? But to the viewer (that is, me), it makes no difference.

[equanimus]

So, to actually make the remark is quite impolite and unfair. But can we banish the question from within us ? Should we just take the art and run and not bother disappointing ourselves ?
No. Not at all. But one has to be discerning enough when making such assumptions. Otherwise one will perhaps find someone else putting some sense into one's head. Let me take Bala again. Isn't it somewhat idiotic of us to condescend to his sensibilities, frankly? I am not bent on employing the "you never know" argument. Let's "get into the specifics" and try to find out what strikes us as "sophisticated" or "unsophisticated," even though such pointers never add up to give a complete picture, etc. Where does he come off as "unsophisticated?" I am not sure. So I'll skip that. Let me talk about the other side. He is quite well read. It's not like he started reading Jeyakanthan the day before he made 'pithAmagan.' (I can't of course put my finger on when he actually did, but I remember his writing in the AV series that he was a big fan of JK and how thrilled he was when he saw Jeyakanthan come to catch a preview of 'vIdu' when he was working under Balu Mahendra.) He has now adapted parts of Jeyamohan's 'EzhAm ulagam' for his latest film. How many of us have read the novel? Or even heard of it?

[Sureshs65]

I do not know if you would call this intentional fallacy but here is my take on Bala's film. It is one of the interpretations that can be offered. I am not sure if Bala meant this but to me this is what I felt.

Read my views at http://sureshs65music.blogspot.com

[P_R]

The artist's consciousness is only incidental.

(What is consciousness anyway?) That's the equivalence I'm drawing between the unconscious layers in the creative process of bad films and good films

I largely disagree with the claim that his consciousness is incidental.
I agree that sometimes things happen over and above the 'control' the creator claims to possess. But what draws us again to the artists works, what makes us expect his future works, what makes us seek unvisited past treasures all these are largely from what he consciously does. Don't you think so ?

How can I be so sure this how he intended I receive the works ? Well I can never be. In the context of mainstream average films, I can claim with some degree of arrogance, that the intention of the artist is guessable.

The multilayered lost in translation of a bad filmmaker is of lesser interest isn't it. I am not so convinced of the equivalence but I will wriggle out of that because I have already declared I am not gunning for consistency here.


Are his films consciously chauvinist? (Let's just say I tell him that they are. What would be his reaction?) Probably not. Do I care? Hell, no. Some films just don't cut it for whatever reasons. Why? Is it because the filmmaker wants it to be so? No. Surely, Cheran wants his films to be sensitive? But to the viewer (that is, me), it makes no difference. His noble intention is not argument in itself. We judge the film regardless of that. Now let me tread the thin ice of judgement and go to an
oversimplified question.

Conceded that a filmmaker can (and will) be worse than he intends to be. Similarly he can better (though less likely) be better than he intends to be.

Good/Bad - subjective, beholder's evaluation of course.

But the question is whether I am applauding for the man who created it or a lucky coincidence he was a part of.

I am guessing your question is: "why do you care ?" Right ?
Hmm....kinda my question too. Perhaps credit to the artist implies possibility of such quality work from him to come. (Doesn't work for dead creators visited now).

[P_R]

He is quite well read. It's not like he started reading Jeyakanthan the day before he made 'pithAmagan.'
Let me let a cat out of the bag. I had watched Sethu, made a mental note of the name Bala and moved on.I rewatched Sethu after I read an early interview of Bala. I assumed - or rather rightly inferred- someone who claimed to be enamoured by the writings of nAnjil nAdan and at the same time admitted to a youth using the word jaari to refer to girls, was someone worth following.

As if he was the only other guy who seemed to traversed the two seemingly different worlds.But to be fair to myself that was merely a starting point. Of course the films made cases for themselves.


Let's "get into the specifics" and try to find out what strikes us as "sophisticated" or "unsophisticated," even though such pointers never add up to give a complete picture, etc.
Difficult to pinpoint. I will probably argue against every argument I make so I know any attempt at an answer is to set up a dtraw man. Let me put it this way. One of the better ways to judge an artist is to see what is the most irritatingly shallow thing that he has let pass in his film. If someone can create/write something of that sort and dare to affix his name to it then how good can he be.

I know this sort of weakest link, stringent scheme of things will blow up on my face. Perhaps I can give an example that may better explain where I am coming from. Taken by the hot air that blows around about Annadurai's reputedly good prose I picked up a novel of his when in college: Parvathy BA. That one novel was all I have ever read of his and I can vouch for the fact that he couldn't have produced as much as a line of any literary merit even if his life depended on it. Any writer worth his salt couldn't have done something as bad.

My respect for Bala's extremely good works coexists with doubts that spring from ordinary-ness of many of his sequences. And his reputation of meticulousness only adds to it because it means every frame is consicously (oops !) crafted. The reactions of the Kasi pandit family is an example and quality of acting in those scenes. I am NOT nitpicking. That is not my intention here. (That list would be longer :mrgreen:). I am only saying someone who can let that pass is someone who gives atleast a little ground to suspect his 'sophistication' (for want of a better word).

Of course there are several problems with the analogy between a dabbA novel and a popular filmmaker. Money, creative control, mani-ramani teamwork and all. But this more an attempt at rationalization than something clearly driven by cold logic.

[equanimus]

The artist's consciousness is only incidental.

(What is consciousness anyway?) That's the equivalence I'm drawing between the unconscious layers in the creative process of bad films and good films

I largely disagree with the claim that his consciousness is incidental.
I agree that sometimes things happen over and above the 'control' the creator claims to possess. But what draws us again to the artists works, what makes us expect his future works, what makes us seek unvisited past treasures all these are largely from what he consciously does. Don't you think so ?
I'm not sure if you got what I meant, I am saying that the artist being conscious of something is incidental for the audience. That of course does not automatically mean the merit of the artist's work is itself incidental. Just because the artist is not consciously aware of something, it doesn't make his or her works just arbitrary, surely? As with anyone else, there are inevitably subconscious layers in the artist's mind too, isn't it? (By the way, I should have said "subconscious layers" there, not "unconscious!") It seems to me that you're bordering on drawing a binary distinction between "conscious" and "arbitrary" here, as if to suggest, either the artist has to be consciously aware of what he is doing, or else he is just arbitrarily making something which happens to be a good film.
Of course, it is true (to different degrees) that "all these are largely from what he consciously does." With emphasis on the word 'largely.' It only means that he is only so much consciously aware of what he is doing and might actually not have a very good sense of the magnitude of his work.

How can I be so sure this how he intended I receive the works ? Well I can never be.
Yes, and well, I don't think there's any need to.

In the context of mainstream average films, I can claim with some degree of arrogance, that the intention of the artist is guessable.
Yeah, here, I agree with you. Yes it is easily guessable, but yet we all do see so many other things as well, don't we?

Conceded that a filmmaker can (and will) be worse than he intends to be. Similarly he can better (though less likely) be better than he intends to be.

Good/Bad - subjective, beholder's evaluation of course.

But the question is whether I am applauding for the man who created it or a lucky coincidence he was a part of.
This is where, I think, you're being reductive of the creative process of the Artist. It's not mere lucky coincidence just because he's not consciously aware of all that he has accomplished, the way I see it.

[equanimus]

My respect for Bala's extremely good works coexists with doubts that spring from ordinary-ness of many of his sequences.
I think now we're talking along parallel lines. My point was only about how easily we condescend to the personal sensibilities of filmmakers in general. I'm not making an exclusive case for Bala here. I talked about some arbitrary "specifics" of Bala just to take a few steps back and see where we stand in comparison. That's all. This is true for a Mani Ratnam as well. I find many parts of his films quite ordinary too. But I can't bring myself to patronise him as unsophisticated on these grounds. Why are we talking about filmmakers we like so much? I'm saying it's silly to patronise even the ones we don't think much of. The next time I condescend to Gautham's sensibilities, somebody please spank me!

It's not like I think Bala's films are flawless. Far from it, as I often clarify when I talk about his films. For instance, none of his films are as even as as the great 'kAdhal,' as far as I'm concerned. But nevertheless, he's a fantastic filmmaker in my books.

Of course there are several problems with the analogy between a dabbA novel and a popular filmmaker. Money, creative control, mani-ramani teamwork and all. But this more an attempt at rationalization than something clearly driven by cold logic.
As for such ordinary patches/pieces/films/phases, I don't even feel the need to rationalise really. It might just not work out. That's how (or as much) I try to understand. For instance, I think 'nAn kadavuL' fails at some levels (though I also think it's a tremendous accomplishment in other ways). To me, it didn't seem to be because of any "commercial compromises" at all. For that matter, I can't for my life understand how Kamal came to write a film like 'dasAvathAram.' It happens. oNNum seyyaRadhukku illai.

[complicateur]

[tscii:5dd5b8fb9d]Forgive me for possibly redirecing the conversation towards NK but here is an excerpt from Jeyamohan's article:

மூன்று, பாலாவே ரசிகர்கள் ஊகிக்கட்டும் என்று விட்டது. மையமான விஷயங்களை ‘ஸ்பூன் ·பீடிங்‘ செய்ய முயன்ற பாலா சண்டைக்காட்சிகள் போன்ற வழக்கமான விஷயங்களை தன் ரசிகர்கள் சாதாரணமாக ஊகித்துவிடுவார்கள் என்று எண்ணிவிட்டார். ஆகவே ஒரு சிறிய முரண் அமைப்பை உருவாக்கினார். தாண்டவன் ருத்ரனுக்காக கோர்ட் வாசலில் காத்திருக்கிறான். அடுத்த காட்சியில் ருத்ரன் தாண்டவனைக் கொன்றபின் தலைகீழாக நிற்கிறான். அதன் பின் ருத்ரன் தாண்டவனை நேருக்குநேர் சந்திக்கும் காட்சி. கொலை. அதன்பின் மீண்டும் முந்தைய காட்சி. அம்சவல்லி வருகிறாள்.
வில்லந் கதாநாயகனைக் கொல்லவருவதும் கதாநாயகன் வில்லனை துரத்திச்சென்று கொல்வதும் எல்லாம் எல்லா படத்திலும் வருவதுதானே சீக்கிரமாக தாவிச்சென்றுவிடலாம் என்று பாலா சொன்னார். எனக்கு அப்படி எளிதாக நம் ஆட்கள் வந்துவிடமாட்டார்கள் என்றுதான் பட்டது. இல்லை இப்போது மிகவும் மாறிவிட்டார்கள் என்றார் பாலா.
The bolded part in specific implies one of two things:
1. Audience awareness of what a 'BAlA' film entails.
2. Audience awareness of the typical constraints of a thamizh film.

This throws another wrench in the works. Every work of art depends on the purveyor to be at a certain level 'preparedness'. For example it seems to me to understand Dostoevsky's impact one would need to be aware of, if not familiar with, Gogol and his depictions of St.Petersburg (Must thank you for that book btw PR. The introduction to the collection provided an excellent 'chronological progression' of Russian Lit.). What does one make of this 'pre-requisite' to art appreciation?
[/tscii:5dd5b8fb9d]

[P_R]

That of course does not automatically mean the merit of the artist's work is itself incidental. Ok. ippo purinch.
Yes, and well, I don't think there's any need to. This is also a 'binary'. Knowledge of the intention sometimes (often) enhances the experience of the viewer. Never 'ndgreengaLA ?

Surely you would agree acquaintance with alternative perspectives of others sometimes leads better appreciation of the work. This is true when the 'other' is just a somebody hazarding a guess. So it as much, if not even more, true when that somebody happens to be the author himself.

In one frustrating experience for RKNarayan recounts when filming the "Guide" is one about location choice. When he heard they were scouting for locations in North India he had an argument with the Exec Producer who stumped RKN with the response : "besides, how do you know where Malgudi is ?"


It's not mere lucky coincidence just because he's not consciously aware of all that he has accomplished, the way I see it. Well I was admittedly being a little polemical but I am a little discomfort when there is seems to be a 'risk' that what I enjoy may be an attribute of the creation but perhaps not that of the creator. Why feel uncomfortable at all is a fair question.


To me, it didn't seem to be because of any "commercial compromises" at all. In some ways that is what is worrying. Isn't it. When Kamal is making Dasavatharam we know he is not writing with "all that he has". And when he laughs all the way to the bank that is pretty much its own scary argument. But with NK - Bala is indeed writing with all he has (now, from where do we get such notions !). That is why the chinks are held up for disproportionate scrutiny and doubt.

[P_R]

"Wow.
IdhellAm dhaan proof of the pudding-kku appArppattavai"You explain?

My claim 1: Bala probably has no idea how great his films are because he is just good and not conscious of the art/craft aspects.

Answer 1: That is of no concern. All that matters is the film. Pudding matters not the chef (something I clearly agree with in another context)

Answer 2: Snooty of you to doubt Bala when on the other hand.... (Yes,
guilty as charged)


All said and done, when Bala seems to make my claim wobble it makes me glad and this has got nothing to do with his film. So when he makes a statement like "one fails when one tries to prove", I take it as an extremely profound statement about art itself which reveals a certain degree of consciousness about art and craft which thrills me.

The struggle is to keep all this out when judging the work. True. But that does not mean I will just look away and refuse to be impressed by the artist himself. Why not ? I say.

oru maadhiri theLivA kuzhappurEnA ?

[Plum]

Ok, got what you are saying.
In a way, I always think of how posterity can judge a work - that will be contextless and independent of the author, right? What happens if we judge one of Bharathiyar's particular work on his patriotic songs bereft of the context, as many in the next generation(or even current) sure will?

Heck, even as I prepare to submit this comment, I find compli has already made this point.

[equanimus]

Yes, and well, I don't think there's any need to. This is also a 'binary'. Knowledge of the intention sometimes (often) enhances the experience of the viewer. Never 'ndgreengaLA ?
No, I had said that specifically in response to the quoted line in your post. There's no need to be sure about how he intended I receive the works. But in general, it's indeed very valuable to know what the artist had in mind even when if he's simply going to say, "well I thought it looked good," or, "please don't bother me."


Surely you would agree acquaintance with alternative perspectives of others sometimes leads better appreciation of the work. This is true when the 'other' is just a somebody hazarding a guess. So it as much, if not even more, true when that somebody happens to be the author himself.
Yes, completely agree.



To me, it didn't seem to be because of any "commercial compromises" at all. In some ways that is what is worrying. Isn't it. When Kamal is making Dasavatharam we know he is not writing with "all that he has". And when he laughs all the way to the bank that is pretty much its own scary argument. But with NK - Bala is indeed writing with all he has (now, from where do we get such notions !). That is why the chinks are held up for disproportionate scrutiny and doubt.
No, actually I gave 'dasAvathAram' as a far better (or should I say worse?) example, in that I just can't come to terms with the sloppy writing for whatever reasons. I can see that Kamal didn't mean to write it with all that he has, but surely, all of it was not about Kamal laughing all the way to the bank? The musings on God, religion and what not, nothing worked for me. I think it failed on all fronts. (I'm able to brush it all aside easily because I didn't expect much out of it to begin with.)

For all my bits of disappointment about the failures of 'nAn kadavuL,' I think it's a stellar film.

[equanimus]

I've posted whatever I had typed in as my response back then... so that we can continue from where we left. :)

[P_R]

Is there such a thing as a literary hoax ? (http://dagalti.blogspot.com/2010/01/blog-post_04.html)

[equanimus]

Idhukku pEsAma intention 'doesn't motor' -nu sollittu nimmadhiyA irukkalaam
ஆமாம், ஆமாம்!

By the way, I'm not sure where we stand now. So let me put forth a statement.

There are many qualities that spill on a work of art without the artist being conscious of it. Do you think this makes the work of art any less praiseworthy?

[P_R]

By the way, I'm not sure where we stand now. So let me put forth a statement.

There are many qualities that spill on a work of art without the artist being conscious of it. Do you think this makes the work of art any less praiseworthy?

Thanks...was thinking about this (yet again) yesterday. Here are some latest exceprts from the stream of consciousness :-)

I think it is important to make a distinction between art forms. Cooking - for instance. I am not being frivolous - it is not for nothing that it is one of thee aayar kalaigaL aRubathinaangu.

There I don't care about the intention/design etc. I purely taste the final product. The proportion achieved by the cooker - Crazy vaazhga- could have been completely incidental. And the applause misplaced <which is somehow at the foundation of my 'art appreciation in general>. But we don't actually care.

Now I tried extending it to music. For example the 'mathematical' perfection

I mentioned to Plum in a PM - that I don't get what it means for a BGM to be 'appropriate' because music - by the very nature of what it is - cannot help being larger than life. Every user slices the cake as he sees fit. Since last evening, I have the reasonable conviction that the duet between the mridangam and violin in 'I met Bach in my House' is the greatest piece of music I have ever heard. I am not at all uncomfortable about the fact that this may suggest different emotions to different listeners. Each may appreciate it for different memories of emotions and associations (akin to your point of 'our whole life rallies behind us at the moment at which we consume a piece of art'). I know for certain that IR and his musicians - know nothing about 'how' I am going to like it. I am not at all fluttered by this.

Now, this may also be because I don't slot myself as a nuanced listener of music. I have taken it upon myself to become the Prof.Higgins to my own Eliza about it this year, that's another story.

I suppose some musical(ly nuanced listeners) appreciates the mathematical perfection in the song, will he be itching to know if IR achieved it consciously or not. (After all, as Poisson once said: music is the pleasure the human mind gets out of counting without actually knowing it). If IR were to reply a la ThiruviLayAdal siVaji : summA kaththunEn (i.e. not the humility - that I guess would be beyond him and anyway irrelevant to our discussion- just the lack of consciousness of the monstrous brilliance of his creation) then would the musical be a tad heartbroken or even more baffled by the 'natural' genius.

Could be either way.

This is all because of the inherent 'form' of the art. In music there is no 'meaning' independent of the form. If the math of the synchronoicity can be deemed 'meaning' over and above the creation then it is for musicals to say (there is a lovely scene in MogamuL where Ranganna and Babu listen to the perfection of unplayed music !)

OTOH In literature - I find it very difficult to digest. The writer is doing more than arranging syllables to achieve highest aesthetic appeal from the arrangement. There is a 'meaning' <not sure if that is the right word> coming out of the of the form that makes it appealing. Not to say the arrangement of syllables isn't inherently enticing (eg. aruNagirinAthAr) but the appeal rises beyond that.

I can at best acknowledge that the creator cannot fully guess how he will be received. But if the creator's intent is 'lost' and the reader's 'principal reading experience' was far removed from the author's intent - then the disappointment is highly justified.

This whole 'author is dead' movement has gone too far. If Vijay Anand can ask R.K.Narayan 'how do you know where Malgudi is ?' then amends need to be made.

[P_R]

Many parts of this essay are germane to the discussion at hand
http://www.jeyamohan.in/?p=6241

Here is a last paragraph I didn't post yesterday because I didn't want to aathify too much tea in weekend emptied shop in one day
__________________________________________

Will reveal another reason why I am annoyed. I dismiss most of current Tamil short story writing <the only form I persist reading>. When the half-baked attempts are passed of as if 'there is something in there' I have just given up on a perhaps-its-beyond-me politeness. i.e 'there is something the reader should bring to the table' and I came with just fork and spoon. But then on repeating reading and <horrors> reading the author's thiruvaai-malarndharuLal in intrees - I am at ease. I 'know' there is nothing in those stories which I didn't get.

Now, that has become the standard. That you can let go on creative control and just be. And that sweatless scrawl can go on to be called 'art' is just annoying. And the foundation of all this is the contention that the 'author is dead' and each reader will have his reading (with the author subtly beaming that his text was open enough to permit the varied reading experiences - I keep thinking of the inkblot joke).

Of what little I read, the creative control of oldies like aadhavan or asOkamitran - is something to bow to. And no-one is even striving in that direction because now it is 'easy' to become an artist.

[Plum]

P_R - enjoyed the posts but I really dont have much to say.

[equanimus]

Many parts of this essay are germane to the discussion at hand
http://www.jeyamohan.in/?p=6241
I don't think so. I'm only halfway through reading it, but reading parts of it and your post, it looks like we're going in many directions here. Firstly, as I see it, this is not particularly about the "the author is dead" movement. (Where I come from, not at all.) I'm not even familiar with it, nor have read Roland Barthes's related essay. (It's ironic that even some of the naysayers of the excesses of postmodernism tend to attribute many older ideas to the movement.) Why, long before Barthes, D. H. Lawrence said, "never trust the teller, trust the tale."

I think many of your concerns, if not all, are related to the 'negation' of an artist's vision/work by moving the focus on the reader and thus rendering several possible readings, many of which might not have anything at all to do with the work. But there's a lot of difference between this and what we're discussing. Just because I do "not trust the teller," it doesn't in any way mean that I'm inclined to trust the 'democracy' of readers. The best evidence is in the work itself. Of course, this means there's no central consensus on the said work, which is as it should be.

As I said before, to me, the qualities that spill on an artist's work without his/her being conscious of it are too significant to be disregarded or even treated as any less praiseworthy. In Jeyamohan-speak, the artist's nuNNuNarvu is very crucial. A good artist makes certain leaps to challenge oneself (including those purely concerned with form) without even being aware of it. If a reader asked, "why did you do it?" the writer might say, "I don't know, it just happened." But that's not reason enough to be backhanded in one's praise, or worse, take the writer's response at face value and believe that it's simply incidental.

[equanimus]

I think it is important to make a distinction between art forms.
Oh, yes, I agree with this. But even here, I guess the conclusions I draw are different.

Now I tried extending it to music. For example the 'mathematical' perfection

I mentioned to Plum in a PM - that I don't get what it means for a BGM to be 'appropriate' because music - by the very nature of what it is - cannot help being larger than life. Every user slices the cake as he sees fit. Since last evening, I have the reasonable conviction that the duet between the mridangam and violin in 'I met Bach in my House' is the greatest piece of music I have ever heard. I am not at all uncomfortable about the fact that this may suggest different emotions to different listeners. Each may appreciate it for different memories of emotions and associations (akin to your point of 'our whole life rallies behind us at the moment at which we consume a piece of art'). I know for certain that IR and his musicians - know nothing about 'how' I am going to like it. I am not at all fluttered by this.
I agree with you to the extent that I think the greatness of a piece of music has nothing to do with the emotions that it elicits in us human beings. To put it in more radical terms, I consider Music as an art form that expressly appeals to our senses and doesn't concern itself with the human condition (here, I'm alluding to Schopenhauer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schopenhauer%27s_aesthetics) who considered it to be the best form of human artistry for this reason). I think, at a subconscious level, I even desist associating various emotions to compositions.

I suppose some musical(ly nuanced listeners) appreciates the mathematical perfection in the song, will he be itching to know if IR achieved it consciously or not. (After all, as Poisson once said: music is the pleasure the human mind gets out of counting without actually knowing it). If IR were to reply a la ThiruviLayAdal siVaji : summA kaththunEn (i.e. not the humility - that I guess would be beyond him and anyway irrelevant to our discussion- just the lack of consciousness of the monstrous brilliance of his creation) then would the musical be a tad heartbroken or even more baffled by the 'natural' genius.

Could be either way.
I'm not a 'musical' in any sense of word, but it's the latter in my case. And, being a purely abstract form of art, I think the role of nuNNuNarvu -- the intuitive 'leap' to challenge oneself -- is even greater in music.

[equanimus]

[tscii:7bcf628efa]
OTOH In literature - I find it very difficult to digest. The writer is doing more than arranging syllables to achieve highest aesthetic appeal from the arrangement. There is a 'meaning' <not sure if that is the right word> coming out of the of the form that makes it appealing. Not to say the arrangement of syllables isn't inherently enticing (eg. aruNagirinAthAr) but the appeal rises beyond that.
To put it very broadly, I think the appeal is life itself.

I can at best acknowledge that the creator cannot fully guess how he will be received. But if the creator's intent is 'lost' and the reader's 'principal reading experience' was far removed from the author's intent - then the disappointment is highly justified.
But in these cases, the problem is because the reading of the work is vague or simply ridiculous. As I see it, the idea that the reader doesn't have to depend on the author's intentions has nothing to do with it. Note that, even in practical terms, if a reader wants to read about/better understand an artist's work, much of what's readily available to him is not written by the respective artists, but by someone else. This is not only a mundane point (though I think that itself is important enough), but in a philosophical sense, this has never been the ‘artist's’ interest.[/tscii:7bcf628efa]

[kid-glove]

What is the 'intention' of this thread?

[kid-glove]

Does the intention of the artist matter
a) Always
b) Never
c) It depends

d) Whatever works. :roll:

[equanimus]

Will reveal another reason why I am annoyed. I dismiss most of current Tamil short story writing <the only form I persist reading>. When the half-baked attempts are passed of as if 'there is something in there' I have just given up on a perhaps-its-beyond-me politeness. i.e 'there is something the reader should bring to the table' and I came with just fork and spoon.
I've to admit that I'm a complete ignoramus on this front. But I've read some of the postmodern critiques in Tamil lit. world that Jeyamohan complains of. So I do see what you mean. :)

[equanimus]

Does the intention of the artist matter
a) Always
b) Never
c) It depends

d) Whatever works. :roll:
kid-glove,
Just curious, how is it different from "It depends" (which is what I think I'd choose if forced to)?

[P_R]

remba length-A pOyitturukka. vaNdi OttaNum.
vandhu padikkarEn.

[kid-glove]

Does the intention of the artist matter
a) Always
b) Never
c) It depends

d) Whatever works. :roll:
kid-glove,
Just curious, how is it different from "It depends" (which is what I think I'd choose if forced to)?

To cut short a futile debate, let's just say I didn't get the full intent of choice c)

'Whatever works' (to the reader) sounds open, personal and invariably irrational (:P) to resort to.

'It depends' sounds like the creation determines the importance of 'intention' through tangible factors, and not the reader.

[equanimus]

'Whatever works' (to the reader) sounds open, personal and invariably irrational (:P) to resort to.

'It depends' sounds like the creation determines the importance of 'intention' through tangible factors, and not the reader.
Oh! I saw "it depends" as an ambivalent answer suggesting that it depends on many things, not as "it depends on the work." :)

invariably irrational (:P)
:)

[Plum]

equa, as I said, unlike others, the problem I have found with your writing is that you write less, not more. It leaves room for ambiguity. Although people complain about your posts being lengthy, what I really found difficult is to read the right meaning between the lines :-)

[kid-glove]

To be honest, Plum, I don't think Equa's writing is at fault in this case. I hadn't got the third options in the poll. :) But I believe you're talking of his writing in general. I agree that Equa's style leaves room for further debate. From my experience, the discourse might not get anywhere in the end, in terms of changing actual status quo, but in many ways, the proponent gets reassured of where he/she stands. If they don't, they get the Equanimatic vision and change ways. :noteeth:

[P_R]

Actually I find equar quite comprehensible, slightly well packed - which is part of the appea.

Thilaquer -to use Sujatha's words- படம் வரைந்து பாகங்கள் குறித்து புரிந்து கொள்வேன். :P

[kid-glove]

Actually I find equar quite comprehensible, slightly well packed - which is part of the appea.

Thilaquer -to use Sujatha's words- படம் வரைந்து பாகங்கள் குறித்து
புரிந்து கொள்வேன். :P

:exactly:

But if you adichu-uttufy or have insufficient backing, he is sure to pin it down. although his debating technique is straight-forward and linear, the opinions are *rooted* so much to the persons involved. Unyielding aside (naturally because one's life experience determine their stance in any issue/debate) if the proponent's idea is muddled or unclear, Equa strikes back till one gets it right and/or he challenges it with counter-points. He is sure to ask for evidence and reasons, lot of people don't react well to it. Adhan 'leaves room for further debate'-nu sonnen. Not 'leaves room for ambiguity'. :P

[P_R]

[tscii:952b08d00e]Equa, I breathe relief in the dismissal of the democracy of readings. I guess the preservation of elitism is at the core of this issue for me - if everyone can have it, then let no-one have it. :lol2:


to me, the qualities that spill on an artist's work without his/her being conscious of it are too significant to be disregarded or even treated as any less praiseworthy.
I struggle with this. That we see it is enough to define its existence ?


I think, at a subconscious level, I even desist associating various emotions to compositions. Hmm.... I also meant (though not exclusively) the emotion felt when listening to the music. This can be without reference to other experiences/memories. Invariably it is for me the memory of the strongest 'listening experience' that keeps getting revisited each time I listen.


And, being a purely abstract form of art, I think the role of nuNNuNarvu -- the intuitive 'leap' to challenge oneself -- is even greater in music. Ok...I think we need an example. Just so we understand better what this leap is. From film ?


but in a philosophical sense, this has never been the ‘artist's’ interest being understood ? For every artist I would say that would be like a burning passion for an extra-marital affair. Something he is consumed by but cannot quite talk about. Heck, the glow that 'understanding' gives even non-artists is tremendous.

One of my story ideas (here goes another novel - Balzac) was about an old writer who has plenty of writings, which is in-his-opinion, are scintillating but are lost on the public. And the only novel that he is appreciated, revered for and which has become his public identity is one that he plagiarized.

As this did not have a beginning-middle-end, principal conflict to be resolved etc. it threatened to take a plotless postmodern shape. So I nipped the idea in the bud :-)


As I see it, the idea that the reader doesn't have to depend on the author's intentions has nothing to do with
it. How come ? Isn't the definition of 'ridiculousness' of the reading all about 'distance' from the intent ? Or two completely divergent but equally 'good' readings are possible. In which case the creator is a 'facilitator' of possible readings ? (I guess this will become clearer with the nuNNuNarvu example)

[/tscii:952b08d00e]

[kid-glove]

[tscii:5fc67a82d3]
Note that, even in practical terms, if a reader wants to read about/better understand an artist's work, much of what's readily available to him is not written by the respective artists, but by someone else. This is not only a mundane point (though I think that itself is important enough), but in a philosophical sense, this has never been the ‘artist's’ interest.

Fair point, Equa. Enakku piditha Kalaignar oruthar,


Characteristically, talking to Danny Plotnick in 1994 about the option of giving lectures, the idea of sharing his views on filmmaking or explaining his aesthetics does not even enter his mind: “I think I would throw together a bunch of disconnected things. Talk a little bit about films I liked or experiences I’ve had or anecdotes that aren’t related to film at all or maybe read a couple poems that I like.” [/tscii:5fc67a82d3]

[kid-glove]

[tscii]
In which case the creator is a 'facilitator' of possible readings ?

Fair point, P_R. AdhE manushan,

regards other people’s different interpretations of them to be at least as valuable as his own, and is afraid that his own reflections would only impose.

[P_R]

[tscii:2d9c50a7d2]
P_R. AdhE manushan,

regards other people’s different interpretations of them to be at least as valuable as his own, and is afraid that his own reflections would only impose.
"Extreme politeness" is the first reaction.
Even if I try hard to believe that statement was genuinely meant - I am kinda stumped why someone would want their work read even if one is not being read.
[/tscii:2d9c50a7d2]

[kid-glove]

a) Should he write another book on what he intends to convey. If it were, then what does it say about the original book.

b) If it's a filmmaker, he leaves it to people gifted with words. He hopes there is enough in film to support the reading. Films are, in any case, meant to be visually consumed, a non-verbal experience.

[kid-glove]

For all its seriousness, this is insolvable. In that, it serves no purpose and there is no conclusion in horizon. We could go over million posts and still not find a resolution. Sheer impracticality of it.

Much rather postmodernist notion of insulating texts from its author. :?

Oh well,
W.H.A.T.E.V.E.R
W.O.R.K.S

:boo:

[P_R]

a) Should he write another book on what he intends to convey. If it were, then what does it say about the original book.
I am ambivalent about this.
Whether follow-up means necessarily
At the risk of drawing a half-baked analogy - the author's frame of mind would be akin to that of the father of the bride.


b) If it's a filmmaker, he leaves it to people gifted with words. He hopes there is enough in film to support the reading. Films are, in any case, meant to be visually consumed, a non-verbal experience. Invariably there will be :lol2:

Jokes apart, I think the crux of the argument was in equa's post denying the 'democracy of readings' is still possible while allowing the possibility of readings beyond what the author 'intended'.

But your quote of an author relinquishing even his 'primacy' is carrying it a little too far IMO. Why would he do that ? I mean, what would such a man's 'motives for creation' be ? Am very curious.

[kid-glove]

I didn't word it the way I wanted to. It should read "there should be enough in film to warrant the reading". Or then it could be deemed ridiculous.


an author relinquishing even his 'primacy' is carrying it a little too far IMO
Author is relinquishing or the postmodern theorists? Authors aren't going to do that, are they?

Btw there is one author who came close to "relinquishing", Elmore Leonard in one of his 10 rules of writing, If it sounds like writing, I rewrite it. Of course, I liked couple of his books but I felt amused. That's taking it a bit far.

[kid-glove]

I am ambivalent about this.
I'm sure this discussion is very purposeful for debate and knowing where we stand, but at the end of it, I hope you find the necessary resolution. I really do.


denying the 'democracy of readings' is still possible
What purpose does that solve?


the preservation of elitism is at the core of this issue for me
"High standard". :wink:

[equanimus]

I'll return to this thread some time tomorrow. Feeling very sleepy now.

[P_R]

Author is relinquishing or the postmodern theorists? Authors aren't going to do that, are they?
The guy you quoted - reluctant to reveal his own interpretation (!) as it would be imposing - is essentially 'relinquishing' isn't he ?

[P_R]

denying the 'democracy of readings' is still possibleWhat purpose does that solve? For one, it made me breathe slightly easier about the whole issue :-)

As I mentioned earlier when I introspect (don't try this at home) one possible source of rage is the rise of 'ridiculous' readings and the half-baked creation that rely on these readings to supply 'meaning'.

But I must also say that these are not the only sources of frustration. :P

On an independent note - in addition to the examples due from equa which I hope he is considering giving (sincere-A kEttEnga ) - I reiterate my curiosity on how an author can be jubilant about facilitating readings other than his own. I don't mean it is impossible but I am just curious to know what that மனநிலை is.
Beholder's eye being the one that deserves the applause and all that.

[kid-glove]

Author is relinquishing or the postmodern theorists? Authors aren't going to do that, are they?
The guy you quoted - reluctant to reveal his own interpretation (!) as it would be imposing - is essentially 'relinquishing' isn't he ?

That's filmmaker Jarmusch. A filmmaker is more of a sculptor, a painter, a photographer - except 25 times a second. He's arranging them in a certain way, giving it a voice, and a background music. There is a marriage of many elements. It is not practical nor correct to impose the awry or far-fetched readings. And as Equa said, I have no problem if some of it incidentally happened, it wouldn't make the creation seem less worthy. A film should be experienced like how a sculpture or mural should be seen and perceived by the audience and not the artist. If the artist says here is a horse and there the swastika, and Wagner's distorted face towards the left, then this is not the medium for him. A film is inhibition of a world, and the audience looks and feels.

I find Leonard's rule of cleansing the writer's own sounds to be more problematic. Because to me, a writer writes and arranges words in certain way, wanting it to be "read" as he intended. But one problem I have with this fascist counter-measure to facilitate 'reading as intended' is in severely limiting the reader's capabilities. And in there lies the danger of being a limited medium. To me, books have always been a superior medium because of different visualizations generated.


Beholder's eye being the one that deserves the applause and all that.
:confused2: Really?

[kid-glove]

[tscii:46d7711720] Another Kalaignar I like:

Why I write, [/u]An excerpt:]Putting aside the need to earn a living, I think there are four great motives for writing, at any rate for writing prose. They exist in different degrees in every writer, and in any one writer the proportions will vary from time to time, according to the atmosphere in which he is living. They are:

(i) Sheer egoism. Desire to seem clever, to be talked about, to be remembered after death, to get your own back on the grown-ups who snubbed you in childhood, etc., etc. It is humbug to pretend this is not a motive, and a strong one. Writers share this characteristic with scientists, artists, politicians, lawyers, soldiers, successful businessmen — in short, with the whole top crust of humanity. The great mass of human beings are not acutely selfish. After the age of about thirty they almost abandon the sense of being individuals at all — and live chiefly for others, or are simply smothered under drudgery. But there is also the minority of gifted, willful people who are determined to live their own lives to the end, and writers belong in this class. Serious writers, I should say, are on the whole more vain and self-centered than journalists, though less interested in money.

(ii) Aesthetic enthusiasm. Perception of beauty in the external world, or, on the other hand, in words and their right arrangement. Pleasure in the impact of one sound on another, in the firmness of good prose or the rhythm of a good story. Desire to share an experience which one feels is valuable and ought not to be missed. The aesthetic motive is very feeble in a lot of writers, but even a pamphleteer or writer of textbooks will have pet words and phrases which appeal to him for non-utilitarian reasons; or he may feel strongly about typography, width of margins, etc. Above the level of a railway guide, no book is quite free from aesthetic considerations.

(iii) Historical impulse. Desire to see things as they are, to find out true facts and store them up for the use of posterity.

(iv) Political purpose. — Using the word ‘political’ in the widest possible sense. Desire to push the world in a certain direction, to alter other peoples’ idea of the kind of society that they should strive after. Once again, no book is genuinely free from political bias. The opinion that art should have nothing to do with politics is itself a political attitude.

It can be seen how these various impulses must war against one another, and how they must fluctuate from person to person and from time to time.

[/tscii:46d7711720]

That is pretty much exhaustive of, & what I think summarizes, the creative juices of an author.

[kid-glove]

ne possible source of rage is the rise of 'ridiculous' readings and the half-baked creation that rely on these readings to supply 'meaning'.
Ok, I understand. :)

[P_R]

It is not practical nor correct to impose the awry or far-fetched readings. Why necessarily awry ?
I am referring to the creator's reluctance to impose his reading.
After demoting the creator's reading from being the final word to the principal to 'yet another reading' now it has come to 'far-fetched' ??


And as Equa said, I have no problem if some of it incidentally happened, it wouldn't make the creation seem less worthy. Of course it would not. But here we also need to make a distinction between the incidental content vs. reading. (I am not sure the distinction is always possible to make). For instance, Bresson I read used to film the same scene umpteen times and then pick one where something beyond his gauging happened. It can be something as simple as an apple dropping of a tree in a frame he set, or a smile by one of the background members of the audience. In the sense that he allows for the medium to dictate its terms while acting as an 'arranger'.

My question is about the reading itself being something beyond what the maker expected.

To quote an example of a K.Balachandar intree (that either equa or you posted from PFC) the frame of the educated guy occuppying a higher position than the illiterate in thaNNeer thaNNeer (or was it achamillai achamillai). KB 'admitted' (if that is the sort of word to use at all in this discussion :-) ) that he meant no metaphor in that frame. Now, does it devalue the metaphor itself ?

Note: the question here is not about whether an incidental reading can add value to a work irrespective of the intention. But whether the intention of the creator being line with the reading make it even more enjoyable. (Both are founded in placing the creator as the principal reader but there is a subtle difference, isn't there ?)

So, if we ( I mean I :-) ) say that there is a greater thrill in being able to gain the author's concurrence then the question is how does one detect the author's intention ? Does that involve a level of meta-ness that is only possible when the author distances his feelings from his work atleast a bit. What is it that we are appreciating then ? The aritst or the craftsman ?

Once again to psychoanalyze some of this rage owes to hatred of the absolute lack of craftsmanship in forms such as தமிழ்ப புதுக்கவிதை. Of course this is not the only context.


Because to me, a writer writes and arranges words in certain way, wanting it to be "read" as he intended.One would think that way, wouldn't one :-) Then would you be surprised if you found an author 'relinquishing' (or to use a milder world) yielding like Jarmusch (heaven bless this soul who I only know by name thus far) did.

i.e. I want to remove the medium from this argument. I mean intention in of any artist and focused on the written word for the same reason you mentioned above because it seemed logical that the 'intention' of the aritst played a huger part in the output than perhaps in other media.

I guess I am jumping from conclusion to conclusion here, so I will pause and let you react till this.

[P_R]

k-g I am talking exactly about the "sheer egoism" motive. Wouldn't one expect an artist to feel that he underachieved on that front if his work is appreciated for reasons other than his intention

<btw this is a side-point. I am first interested in the question from our pov and not from that of the author's.i.e. there is beauty in the work but it seems to lie more in the beholder's eye than in the work itself. idhai thaan solla try paNNen>

[kid-glove]

I'll see if I could respond.

I missed a portion of the statement, "It is not practical nor correct to impose his own over the awry or far-fetched readings."
His is the final word. He has gone over the clips thousand times in editing room and arranged it so consciously. If the audience interpretation is awry and far-fetched, then he can't limit these thoughts. He puts forward a world with a life of its own, and his brilliance is in making it as close & perfect it could be, to his original vision. His only expectation should be wanting the audience to inhibit it. What you are suggesting is, for him to be zealous and for his own preservation, to spoon feed and guide the interpretation. But then, the beauty of art is lost. Isn't this much more true of Poetry or art in general as against Reality & science? You once quoted a Sufi poem in the past,

The one who tastes, knows;
the one who explains, lies.

[kid-glove]

I am first interested in the question from our pov and not from that of the author's.i.e. there is beauty in the work but it seems to lie more in the beholder's eye than in the work itself.
This is crux of the debate.



Does that involve a level of meta-ness that is only possible when the author distances his feelings from his work atleast a bit. What is it that we are appreciating then ? The aritst or the craftsman ?

I'm not sure about this.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines the older broad meanings of the term "artist,"

* A learned person or Master of Arts (now rather obsolete)
* One who pursues a practical science, traditionally medicine, astrology, alchemy, chemistry (also obsolete)
* A follower of a pursuit in which skill comes by study or practice - the opposite of a theorist
* A follower of a manual art, such as a mechanic - partly obsolete
* One who makes their craft a fine art
* One who cultivates one of the fine arts - traditionally the arts presided over by the muses - now the dominant usage

[equanimus]

Equa, I breathe relief in the dismissal of the democracy of readings. I guess the preservation of elitism is at the core of this issue for me - if everyone can have it, then let no-one have it. :lol2:
Oh, but I've always disapproved of any notion of 'democracy' in appreciating art. What prompted me to clarify this here was your complaint about the state of current Tamil short story writing and the reference to the linked Jeyamohan's essay as relevant to this discussion. (I could also recall your conversation with Venkiraja about contemporary Tamil poetry in this context.) Actually, reading those two posts, I was able to better understand where you are coming from.


to me, the qualities that spill on an artist's work without his/her being conscious of it are too significant to be disregarded or even treated as any less praiseworthy.
I struggle with this. That we see it is enough to define its existence ?
But you're not confronting the point I've made. What about the qualities that do spill on the work without the artist being conscious of it? Actually I think this is like seeing it backwards; ie. it seems to me that you're focusing primarily on what happens in the aftermath of the creation. At least I struggle with this because I'm more interested in the process of creation itself. To be more precise, I don't (have to) discard the possibility of a 'reading' that is wholly incidental (whatever that means), but I'm more interested in preserving what (I think) is in the work but the artist doesn't attest that he/she thought of.

I'm not sure if I'm making a whole lot of sense, but let me make this proposition anyway: I spoke of the artist's 'leap' earlier. I think it's fair to say that the artist occasionally switches to become a viewer of his/her own work (even as it's under construction). These notions of 'leap' and 'switch' are very loose, of course. I suggest that the artist's 'leap' is complemented by this 'switch.' It is often the switch that makes the artist understand what's happening to the work. This idea can of course (or so I think) be connected to what writers often have to say regarding a story/film discovering its own form, structure, tone etc.

[kid-glove]

So, if we ( I mean I ) say that there is a greater thrill in being able to gain the author's concurrence then the question is how does one detect the author's intention ?

I do see this point. I'd highly welcome & respect concurrence and correspondence from the creator. But IMHO, it should never be made into something of a compulsive disorder. And I don't really seem to ascribe 'greatness' to 'confirmed belief' of the audience, & therefore not much interested in elitism-attribution to their reading, but more perhaps to reaffirm the credits paid to the creation & especially the artist. For

the "sheer egoism" motive. Wouldn't one expect an artist to feel that he underachieved on that front if his work is appreciated for reasons other than his intention

[equanimus]

[tscii:9e7e327032]

And, being a purely abstract form of art, I think the role of nuNNuNarvu -- the intuitive 'leap' to challenge oneself -- is even greater in music. Ok...I think we need an example. Just so we understand better what this leap is. From film ?
Well, I'm unable to think of a proper example to illustrate my case end to end. But nuNNuNarvu is everywhere. Let's take humour. How do some writers invariably crack better jokes? Is it merely because they consciously try so well? What about the many layers they've assimilated in their subconscious? For instance, the urge to escape clichés is often not a conscious exercise. A kind of a joke becomes passé after a while. Both the speaker and the listener say and react to the joke in the way they do because of what's assimilated in their subconscious.

The joke didn't exist before the author wrote it. In an abstract sense, that is the leap I'm talking about. A joke of the order of the kAththAdi-kurangu joke manages to surprise the one who created it. appadiyE varRadhu dhAn 'ngaREn.


but in a philosophical sense, this has never been the ‘artist's’ interest being understood ? For every artist I would say that would be like a burning passion for an extra-marital affair. Something he is consumed by but cannot quite talk about. Heck, the glow that 'understanding' gives even non-artists is tremendous.
Being understood is an interest, but the legitimate way is always through the work. There's nothing more farcical for the artist than having to explain the beauty in the work to someone. The tragedy here is precisely that it doesn't exist in the work (at least to those who he ends up explaining it to).[/tscii:9e7e327032]

[equanimus]

And I'm still on the 3rd page, guys. nInga pORa speedla pOnga, nAn appdiyE vandhu sErndhukkaREn.

[kid-glove]

Actually I think this is like seeing it backwards; ie. it seems to me that you're focusing primarily on what happens in the aftermath of the creation. At least I struggle with this because I'm more interested in the process of creation itself. To be more precise, I don't (have to) discard the possibility of a 'reading' that is wholly incidental (whatever that means), but I'm more interested in preserving what (I think) is in the work but the artist doesn't attest that he/she thought of.

I'm not sure if I'm making a whole lot of sense, but let me make this proposition anyway: I spoke of the artist's 'leap' earlier. I think it's fair to say that the artist occasionally switches to become a viewer of his/her own work (even as it's under construction). These notions of 'leap' and 'switch' are very loose, of course. I suggest that the artist's 'leap' is complemented by this 'switch.' It is often the switch that makes the artist understand what's happening to the work. This idea can of course (or so I think) be connected to what writers often have to say regarding a story/film discovering its own form, structure, tone etc.

This is one part of what I referred by,


I don't really seem to ascribe 'greatness' to 'confirmed belief' of the audience, & therefore not much interested in elitism-attribution to their reading, but more perhaps to reaffirm the credits paid to the creation & especially the artist.

[kid-glove]

And I'm still on the 3rd page, guys. nInga pORa speedla pOnga, nAn appdiyE vandhu sErndhukkaREn.

There isn't much actually. He clarified and pinned down the crux of the argument. I could relate to the issue better.

[P_R]

நாளைக்கு லீவ் போட்டு படிக்கலாம்னு இருக்கேன். வேலை எல்லாம் பாக்க சொல்றாய்ஞ.

[P_R]

[tscii]
What you are suggesting is, for him to be zealous and for his own preservation, to spoon feed and guide the interpretation.
First I reacted very strongly to the word 'spoon-feed' and said a big no. Then I deleted and wrote this:

Essentially if the audience seems to be largely missing the point I would be surprised if the artist doesn't atleast try to show the spoon. That is all.

Anyway, I think we should come back to artist's pov later.

I am sounding like these anti-immigration guys who generously concede that a little immigration (dhoodh mein shakkar) is good but not if it changes the face of the city/country. That is pretty close how I feel about alternative/additional readings. :P


The one who tastes, knows;
the one who explains, lies.
Rabi e Basri.
That is about the impossibility of perfect expression. The artist would be kidding himself if he aims for 'perfect' understanding.
Here we are questioning if 'perfect' understanding should be a parameter at all to evaluate.


The Oxford English Dictionary
adhellAm enthukku ? Consider the line memorably said by Raju and more memorably oft-quoted by Equa: naan romba aartistungo.

I like to believe that is a temperament. Craft is the skill. Carelessly speaking it can be called the dirty work of being an artist. But sometimes it is that moment of creation that matters. This again is from the artist's pov. From the consumer's pov too this distinction messes.

But imagine sculpture. The realization in stone of the conceived ‘moment’ is so drenched in the creator’s sweat. It is hurdled by a hundred ’sub-tasks’ of creating- each individually trivial – that it is a miracle that the conceived moment is realized in the final product – even if not in full measure- substantially. Is it possible to discount the craft and appreciate the 'art' ?


But you're not confronting the point I've made. What about the qualities that do spill on the work without the artist being conscious of it? Hmm... perhaps I don't see such overwhelmingly positive examples. What is the example of a case where the alternative reading is larger than the artist hoped for and is also not ridiculous given the work.

The switch you talk about will always always be there, right ? Heck, forget art, all of us are self-conscious people varying only in degree. Aren't we ?
Now I am not sure what the 'leap' is....



In an abstract sense, that is the leap I'm talking about. A joke of the order of the kAththAdi-kurangu joke manages to surprise the one who created it. appadiyE varRadhu dhAn 'ngaREn. For some reason I expected you would give humour as the example.
Do you think kAthAdi-kurangu surprised them when writing itself (as in a 'wow, where did that one come from !' moment) ? Or it was the overwhelming response that (would have) surprised them ?
Because when you are talking about the 'leap' I think you want to emphasize the former. Right ? i.e. during the process of the creation itself.



be connected to what writers often have to say regarding a story/film discovering its own form, structure, tone etc.Ah... I have never understood this to be anything more than a cute 'personification' that poets are given to. Is there really more to it ?

[kid-glove]

Essentially if the audience seems to be largely missing the point I would be surprised if the artist doesn't atleast try to show the spoon. That is all.
Then we have no debate. Lot of artists seem to be doing that. I just don't see this being a compulsion. Although I do feel it would help avoid twits foul-mouth Fellini in a ticket queue. :P


Anyway, I think we should come back to artist's pov later.
Ok.

About Craft, I was startled you said what I had quoted. Hence, I had to see Oxford first, and get what part of it matches the interpretation. :lol2: Maybe I misinterpreted what you had written. :lol2: We all need spoons ! :sigh2: Your actual quote:


Does that involve a level of meta-ness that is only possible when the author distances his feelings from his work atleast a bit. What is it that we are appreciating then ? The aritst or the craftsman?

I never said one has to discount 'craft'. I still don't accept denigration of an artist, distancing "his feelings from his work", to be more of a craftsman. Suggestion of the dichotomy here, is just phony. It's not right, uh, it's wrong.

[P_R]

I never said one has to discount 'craft'.
When I quote I am not necessarily responding. I am merely using it as a starting point. neenga craft paththi edhunA sonneengaLA enna ?

I brought in craftsman wrt to my own question about how to guess intention:

i.e. for the artist to indicate intention to the reader without actually (tragically) explaining himself, will require a level of metaness. To do that he will have to distance himself from his work atleast slightly. Hence the craft aspects.
As warned earlier there may be some jumps to conclusions, perhaps triple jumps (perhaps 'leaps' ?)


I still don't accept denigration of an artist, distancing "his feelings from his work", to be more of a craftsman. Is 'craftsman' a denigration.

In one of vaNNadAsan's stories one of his co-writers tells the narrator. வித்தை தெரிஞ்சவங்க எல்லாம் எழுதாம இருக்கீங்க.

I love the line. Especially the usage of the word வித்தை.



Suggestion of the dichotomy here, is just phony. It's not right, uh, it's wrong. Phony ?? As in 'it is only a qn. of degree for everyone" etc. sari adhukkenna ?

Anyway, this whole question is concerned with a reader like yours truly who is hungry for some indication of intention. We are questioning whether it is valid to be hungry or not.[/html]

[kid-glove]

Neenga sonna madhiri, "Carelessly speaking it can be called the dirty work of being an artist."
Adhu than ennoda bayyam.

But next line sari kattiteenga,
"But sometimes it is that moment of creation that matters."

But the original quote came before this, so didn't know where you're coming from.

[equanimus]

But you're not confronting the point I've made. What about the qualities that do spill on the work without the artist being conscious of it? Hmm... perhaps I don't see such overwhelmingly positive examples. What is the example of a case where the alternative reading is larger than the artist hoped for and is also not ridiculous given the work.
I'm not sure about this (i.e. I didn't confirm, but hey what's the point!), may be Hitchcock and 'the transfer of guilt' theme?

The switch you talk about will always always be there, right ? Heck, forget art, all of us are self-conscious people varying only in degree. Aren't we ?
Now I am not sure what the 'leap' is....But isn't that the whole point? Artists or viewers, we are all self-conscious, but not in a complete sense. Art or life, this is complemented by instinct. What is creativity if not instinctive? Even as I was writing the earlier posts, I was more than once reminded of this post (http://infinite-circle.blogspot.com/2005/02/what-is-genius_28.html), to which I'm able to trace back some of these ideas. That one was about the queen of the sciences, but I think is quite easily extensible to art too.

And, one of the things I initially thought of doing in the last post (but skipped) is to draw some sort of equivalence between the writer's reader and any other reader, and invoke your own favourite idea that "we first like something and then find out why." Simply put, I think more or less the same is applicable for the artist too.

For some reason I expected you would give humour as the example. Not surprised! I've been meaning to bring it myself to this discussion from early on.

Do you think kAthAdi-kurangu surprised them when writing itself (as in a 'wow, where did that one come from !' moment) ? Or it was the overwhelming response that (would have) surprised them ?Most likely yes. And I guess the very next line stands testimony to that. The overwhelming response came much later, right? (If you did mean the response of the general audience and not the ones on the set, that is. :))

Because when you are talking about the 'leap' I think you want to emphasize the former. Right ? i.e. during the process of the creation itself. Yes.


be connected to what writers often have to say regarding a story/film discovering its own form, structure, tone etc.Ah... I have never understood this to be anything more than a cute 'personification' that poets are given to. Is there really more to it ?Yes, I suppose. I think this is how a book or a film changes its course with time. Note that I'm not suggesting that this happens independent of the artist's consciousness. It's still the conscious artist who lets it go that particular way. In Jeyamohan-speak, idhu oru muraNiyakkam enRu ninaikkiREn.

By the way, I recently read this in an interview (http://hubpages.com/hub/A-Conversation-with-Chandrahas-Choudhury) (of one Mr. Chandrahas Choudhary) and duly lifted the same words. :)

[P_R]

"Carelessly speaking it can be called the dirty work of being an artist."
Adhu than ennoda bayyam. Denigrating madhiri thonuchu.

Actually this is a sympton of a different syndrome, to permit myself another self-centered digression: the desire to say all - even the opposite. That prefix 'carelessly speaking' was to denigrate the denigration.

Indha solli/senju paakura aasai sila time uRavugaLai kooda baadhikkudhu. (Well ah...!) It's like 'meaning' has been washed off words and moments and all that remains is the experience of walking through them.

Anyway, back on track

[equanimus]

I'm not sure about this (i.e. I didn't confirm, but hey what's the point!), may be Hitchcock and 'the transfer of guilt' theme? That was to say, I couldn't find out whether Hitchcock confirmed the presence of the theme or not.

[kid-glove]

Digressive it might be.

It's like 'meaning' has been washed off words and moments and all that remains is the experience of walking through them.
That's profound and true.

[kid-glove]

This topic is haunting :(

It's not just "Art". But in sports, it gives a whole new dimension to me. It's "everything".

The other day I was watching FIFA centenary celebration DVD, and the section for unexpected/hilarious/erroneous goals scored in history of the game. Invariably, lot of the 'unintentional' ones are categorized here. To quote a famous one, the question of Ronaldinho's intention in his goal against England, 2002 world cup, took away the brilliance of the goal. And in similar vein, a player constructing a move and finding the "right pass" is said to be "creative" and a playmaker. While, if he does it based on deflections and by accident*, he is rightly discredited from such glowy praise. And that's fair!

*--If a player shoots towards the goal but it gets converted to a pass - (the exact opposite of Dinho's 2002 goal) converse of playing the ball for another player to score, but turns out to be a goal.

And surprisingly enough, this is put to practice in Science as well. That is, scientific laws/theories deduced in history are being studied with the conditions (of the time, place, etc) , and intentions (of the inventor) taken into consideration. Except that, it's not to disregard their value of importance, but possibly to understand them better.

Now I'm convinced I'm going to be haunted forever.

[P_R]

Sporting genius is very spot on.

I will post tomorrow as I am kinda done with my quota of impenetrable fog (http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_fog-breaks-7-year-record-in-delhi-hits-air-rail-services_1337283) today :P

[P_R]

How do some writers invariably crack better jokes? Is it merely because they consciously try so well?
Hmm while I have to grant this point, this wasn't the kinda example I was hoping for. Something on the lines of a poem/story/scene etc. which can be 'reasonably' liked for a reason which was surely not something the artist could have intended.

'Transfer of Guilt' ..hmm. Those are places where I get off the bus.
Remember the conversation about Tejaswini Niranjana and MSS Pandian etc's film analyses ? Now that isn't exactly about art-appreciation but hunting for சமூகவியல் கூறுகள். We can dismiss it all as ridiculous. But there is an academic earnestness to it (which I do not make to be its own argument). What I am trying to say is, if one is sufficiently at it, it is possible to generate a reading which need not be ridiculous but has more to do with the reader than what is being read.


To quote a famous one, the question of Ronaldinho's intention in his goal against England, 2002 world cup, took away the brilliance of the goal. adhaan yA (though I don't know the example I think I get the drift). adhE dhaan. A goal is a goal is a goal - happy coincidence or not - is one way to see it. Are we comfortable having the same yardstick in literature ?

Imagine calling a poet a genius based on a typographical error.

[equanimus]

How do some writers invariably crack better jokes? Is it merely because they consciously try so well?
Hmm while I have to grant this point, this wasn't the kinda example I was hoping for. Something on the lines of a poem/story/scene etc. which can be 'reasonably' liked for a reason which was surely not something the artist could have intended.
Hmm, I'll try to come up with better examples, but any film in which "things fall in place" during the process of writing/filming it would do. In any case, I don't think there's much to discuss without seeing eye to eye on the significance of artistic instincts.

'Transfer of Guilt' ..hmm. Those are places where I get off the bus.
Remember the conversation about Tejaswini Niranjana and MSS Pandian etc's film analyses ? Now that isn't exactly about art-appreciation but hunting for சமூகவியல் கூறுகள். We can dismiss it all as ridiculous. But there is an academic earnestness to it (which I do not make to be its own argument). What I am trying to say is, if one is sufficiently at it, it is possible to generate a reading which need not be ridiculous but has more to do with the reader than what is being read.
But I think you again collapse the whole gamut of possibilities by simply getting off the bus. I've read some of the film critiques of EPW (of the likes of Tejaswini Niranjana and MSS Pandian). I've found some of them persuasive, some not. Firstly, most of them are academic essays and often specifically about 'the readers' and what the film means to the emerging national/world politics etc., and in many case explicitly clarify this (that theirs is not a film review). The Hitchcock case is different. Anyway, I don't think it makes much sense to group them all together. The simplest logic, as I argued earlier too, is to try and apply this logic to 'bad films.' Should the critics be content and withdraw their critiques on a film just because the filmmaker claims he didn't think so?


To quote a famous one, the question of Ronaldinho's intention in his goal against England, 2002 world cup, took away the brilliance of the goal. adhaan yA (though I don't know the example I think I get the drift). adhE dhaan. A goal is a goal is a goal - happy coincidence or not - is one way to see it. Are we comfortable having the same yardstick in literature ?
Actually I think the football analogy is way off the mark. Simply put, there is 'a goal' here. I don't intend to dismiss sports as divorced from a sense of aesthetics (debating that would be tangential anyway; but I'm just clarifying that I don't think so myself), but 'the aesthetic' there is not equivalent to 'the score' at all.

[equanimus]

[tscii:50472e4196]
Imagine calling a poet a genius based on a typographical error.
Ultimately, I feel it is the sense of this ‘horror’ (to suggest something fantastical) that inhibits you from seeing the other side. :)[/tscii:50472e4196]

[equanimus]

Allow me one tangential note though. Even in sports, note that 'the unselfconscious' is very crucial. Both the body and the mind react in sub-second time frame. The dichotomy between the mind and the 'sub-mind' (body?) collapses much more seamlessly (than in art) here.

[P_R]

In any case, I don't think there's much to discuss without seeing eye to eye on the significance of artistic instincts.
Yes the artist can surprise himself. But IMO that is something minor in the whole scheme of what we tend to enjoy. And this is still not building a case for something like poetry appreciation where the differences in experiences are huge. So much so that one is very very circumspect about 'liking'.


Should the critics be content and withdraw their critiques on a film just because the filmmaker claims he didn't think so?Hmm...on the face of it I would have to say no.
But the concern here is about appreciation, I am not sure if the argument is necessarily symmetric.


Simply put, there is 'a goal' here. I don't intend to dismiss sports as divorced from a sense of aesthetics (debating that would be tangential anyway; but I'm just clarifying that I don't think so myself), but 'the aesthetic' there is not equivalent to 'the score' at all. Well let's put it this way, it is quite possibly in sport to just manage to do the right thing at the right time.The fluke is more discernible in sport.

We yearn to distinguish between genius and a stroke of coincidence ? Why is that yearning not important in art ? Are we really enjoying only the 'final output' always ? Always ? Should that be our exclusive concern ? Would love to say yes to all of these, but I know that is not the case.

[kid-glove]

About that particular example. It's a freekick and it's not a question of "sub-second time frame", Equa.

Everyone is set, and after the referee blows the whistle, the player has the option of either 'crossing' it (could be done in many ways, inswinging or outswinging, to near post, or to far post, aimed at a particular player or just hit-n-hope) for another player to score, or to go for goal directly. And in this case, to go for goal directly against a world class goal keeper from such a long distance and a difficult angle. The question here is if it was a "goal attempt" OR a 'cross' for another player to divert into goal ! because it has a beautiful underspin to it, and the trajectory achieved made it impossible to be saved and yet there is a strong semblance of a "cross". The beauty of the goal is there, but in football (or sports), it's still not enough to appreciate unless one is convinced of "intention".

Now, I was convinced of the intention because the player in question had scored variety of freekicks . Now, that is not "enough" for others. They are yet to be convinced. And I'm beginning to doubt my own conviction. :cry:

[kid-glove]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDz1FUayjs0

[equanimus]

[tscii:b44252ff04]
We yearn to distinguish between genius and a stroke of coincidence ? Why is that yearning not important in art ? Are we really enjoying only the 'final output' always ? Always ? Should that be our exclusive concern ? Would love to say yes to all of these, but I know that is not the case.
But nobody says (at least, I don't) only the 'final output' should be our exclusive concern! Here's where, I think, you're turning ‘reactionary’ to the idea that one should focus on the work of art. (I wanted to make this same point in the other thread too where we talked about 'minnalE' a while back!) Let me illustrate what I'm trying to say. When we measure the greatness of a writer by examining the greatness in his works, the writer doesn't just disappear. It's still completely about the writer. The simple fact that we look at all these works as 'a whole' asserts the writer's primacy. Which is why we talk in terms of Hitchcock, Mani Ratnam, Kamal Haasan et al. in the first place, isn't it?

And consider this. We constantly attribute various elements in a film/story to different ‘sources,’ don't we? Nobody is arguing that this is wrong! Saying "only the final output matters" is as farcical as saying "mahAnadhi was made by Santhana Bharathi!" It's that simple.

Like with any idea, there will be people who take this to the ridiculous extremes. One such example would be the one Jeyamohan talks about in that post -- ‘சுந்தரராமசாமி எழுதுவதும் சரோஜாதேவி எழுதுவதும் ஒன்றுதான்’. But one should not confuse such extremes as the essence of the idea.[/tscii:b44252ff04]

[P_R]

That the author is not dislodged but only made stronger is something I get. That's not the source of my discomfort.

Okay what I want to say is this (which is where the whole thing started): If I like a work of an artist the framework of evaluation should be permit me to go back and devalue the first work based on evidence apart from the work itself.

Perhaps I thought too much of it ? Perhaps it was my liking that was at work ? I extrapolated too much. I thought this guy could have created something like what I thought he did. Now I think that is not the case.

Such a leeway becomes increasingly impossible when the intention is discounted.

[equanimus]

About that particular example. It's a freekick and it's not a question of "sub-second time frame", Equa.
Oh okay. dissance dhAn kAraNam, k-g. :)
And I finished going through your posts here too. I think I agree with you here:

Because to me, a writer writes and arranges words in certain way, wanting it to be "read" as he intended. But one problem I have with this fascist counter-measure to facilitate 'reading as intended' is in severely limiting the reader's capabilities.
To be precise, I'm not particularly interested in upholding the "reader's capabilities" or power, but in the idea that there could be more to a work of art than what appears to any one person.

[kid-glove]

Moved here,


k-g, either here or there why don't you mention an example of an interpretation you enjoyed immensely when you were pretty sure the author wouldn't have intended it that way.
That's nerve-wracking thing to do, alright.

But here's a brief history of trying to form a valid reading.

At first, my readings were only based on book/film in question.

But after a while, I tried to read the full oeuvre, or watch the entire 'filmography' if I had enjoyed reading couple of filmmaker's/author's films/books, and it gave way for interesting thoughts.

Sticking to films, I find it very useful in sensing subversions in various genres as the filmmaker tread down different genres (eg. Coens and QT), or attempting visual metaphors. To understand judgmental or nonjudgmental tones in their work. and believe me, If I were to make an interpretation, I first hope to be reassured of basics such as genuine foreshadowing through earlier sequences, closure to various conflicts or open-ends, etc. I'm convinced most of the writers and filmmakers don't follow a rigid structure, so it's vital to understand their own "structures". And by conincidences, I'd gather the recurrent motifs, unique techniques and frequent themes, especially religious, political, region-specific, and gay undertones (I'm serious here, because there are many audiences throwing ridiculous interpretations in this area)

Then my obsessions diverted to 'inheritance'. In that a film or filmmaker is following in lineage and is one link of a chain. So, influences of a film is traced and I watch all films described in interview of filmmaker, and films in similar "pattern" or particular genre that could have influenced them. Influences of a filmmaker is a whole new thing. This is mostly guided by hearsay, and interviews. Closest example is Bergman/Fellini to Allen, Visconti/Godard/Pasolini to Bertolucci, Hitchcock/Antonioni to DePalma, DePalma/Leone to QT, Altman/Demme to PT Anderson, Like that.

If this doesn't provide enough leeway (then nothing will !!), I discard the reading (even if enjoyable) as far-fetched. So when you ask me for examples, I'd have do some thinking if it hadn't mentally disfigured already. :)

[equanimus]

Okay what I want to say is this (which is where the whole thing started): If I like a work of an artist the framework of evaluation should be permit me to go back and devalue the first work based on evidence apart from the work itself.
Which is... another work. I don't see a significant disagreement here really. Except that I'd argue that the devaluation of the first work is because you're revaluating its merits after growing more familiar with the concerns/pet themes of the artist via his later films. The point being it is still not divorced from the first work per se. You're now inclined to believe that it didn't exist. In a sense, it is all interconnected. We constantly revaluate films.

Anyway, if the point of debate was this specific, I wish we had started at this point! (Considering how it all started, I did want to go in the direction of discussing how a viewer's estimation of an artist changes with time, but did so only in the last post. :))

Such a leeway becomes increasingly impossible when the intention is discounted.
Not to sound like a rigid academic, but do you feel the artist's original intention would significantly change the course for the viewer who is already on the verge of having a rethink about the earlier film?

[equanimus]

Should the critics be content and withdraw their critiques on a film just because the filmmaker claims he didn't think so?Hmm...on the face of it I would have to say no.
But the concern here is about appreciation, I am not sure if the argument is necessarily symmetric.
Oh, that's a very fair point. Admittedly a simplistic move, but just felt it contradicts the point well enough. And, no, I wouldn't suggest it's symmetric.

[complicateur]

Allow me one tangential note though. Even in sports, note that 'the unselfconscious' is very crucial. Both the body and the mind react in sub-second time frame. The dichotomy between the mind and the 'sub-mind' (body?) collapses much more seamlessly (than in art) here.
k-g,
There are cases unlike the free kick. (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/100120&sportCat=nba)


k-g, either here or there why don't you mention an example of an interpretation you enjoyed immensely when you were pretty sure the author wouldn't have intended it that way.
Wasn't addressed to me, but let me throw down an example. My reading of GuNA as Kamal's inability to make the cinema he wants because of the 'commercial/real world' constraints he exists in. When he eventually does make the film he wants it ends in disaster.

[kid-glove]

To clarify Compli, I was only talking about the freekick, and I don't necessarily disagree about what Equa had said.

[P_R]

Okay what I want to say is this (which is where the whole thing started): If I like a work of an artist the framework of evaluation should be permit me to go back and devalue the first work based on evidence apart from the work itself.
Which is... another work. I don't see a significant disagreement here really. Except that I'd argue that the devaluation of the first work is because you're revaluating its merits after growing more familiar with the concerns/pet themes of the artist via his later films. The point being it is still not divorced from the first work per se. You're now inclined to believe that it didn't exist. In a sense, it is all interconnected. We constantly revaluate films.

Hmm...well it needn't be another work always.
Let me step up the elitism - we do evaluate (reevaluate) the work based on our changing impression of the artist himself . That impression may be drawn from his work and may even be drawn from knowledge about him.




Anyway, if the point of debate was this specific, I wish we had started at this point! :lol:
Equa: pfoo ! இதுதான் பிரச்சனைன்னு தெரிஞ்சிருந்தா எப்பவோ தீர்ப்பு சொல்லிருப்பேனே

Well it is one major part of it. The more fundamental problem is something like this

Reader does not understand what a poem means. The lines are impressive, the imagery attractive but what was the experience that the author tried to portray overall is something he can't catch. He has a reading which is personal in the sense that 'it talks to him' and that is precisely why he finds it difficult to believe the poet could have written it.

Either the author is a genius in capturing an aspect of the 'human condition' that was general but treated subtly and specially enough to appeal to him (the reader I mean, "damn these pronouns" as PGW would say). Or the writer meant something else and the reader took off on a tangent on this interpretation because that is his overarching preoccupation.

Okay this may be a bad way to go about reading but to twist the Kaufmanquote: (mostly) the only thing I can read about is myself and my own self. Whattodo..

Based on future works/ other knowledge he can re-evaluate this poem again. But at that moment of consumption how can he gauge his reaction ? Isn't he in a fix ?

Okay the he is me of course.

The dictum படிச்சா உனக்கென்ன தோணுதோ அதுதான் அர்த்தம் is the surest way to make one give up. Stops them from 'scaling heights' after a point. Always worried about having ridiculous readings. Add defensive cynicism to that and we have poison.



Such a leeway becomes increasingly impossible when the intention is discounted.
Not to sound like a rigid academic, but do you feel the artist's original intention would significantly change the course for the viewer who is already on the verge of having a rethink about the earlier film? No. Revisit to upgrade rarely happens எனக்கு அப்பிடி தோணலைன்னா படத்துல/எழுத்துல அது சரியா கொண்டு வரப்படலை is something I invariably stand by. Close-minded. Revisit to downgrade happens more regularly. And many times this happens because there is an erosion in faith in the creator's vision. A man such as this could not have pulled off something that goos, I must have overvalued etc. Now, will I stop doing that if I do find 'proof' of the author's intention ? Well, tough to say. I think it will make me pause and be more circumspect about devaluation.


PS: flow-la romba personalA uLarittEnnu ninaikkiREn. pirichu pArthu uruppadiyAnadhai eduththukkunga.

[P_R]

k-g, either here or there why don't you mention an example of an interpretation you enjoyed immensely when you were pretty sure the author wouldn't have intended it that way.
Wasn't addressed to me, but let me throw down an example. My reading of GuNA as Kamal's inability to make the cinema he wants because of the 'commercial/real world' constraints he exists in. When he eventually does make the film he wants it ends in disaster.

The reading is indeed novel and lovely. Belongs to the "non-ridiculous" box. But the film does not hinge on it, does it ?

btw I feel Kamal films need one more distinction - which is why he is my model screenwriter. He makes sure our enjoyment of the film is not tied to some subtle interpretation. There is something direct and edible. Once under the spell then we can make other readings that enhance the experience.

Till equa and you posted about Abirama bhattar, something as obviously 'intended' as that, didn't strike me. After that my liking of the film has grown gigantically. Now I have no idea how I managed to enjoy the film before I knew of that. But I did. And that's what I like about Kamal.

Imagine if the film was 'make or break' without the understanding of that metaphor. That is my issue with other works. Anyway (as k-g said in a ..er previous life) I cannot expect every creator to conform to a certain style. And I don't yet have the ability to say (as Thirumaran's daughter apparently said profoundly about AO): "padam nallA irundhuchu, aanA enakku pudikkalai" :rotfl2:

Essentially, while your reading about Kamal portraying his own restrictions as a filmmaker via Guna, is interesting. The experience of the filmwatching does not hang on it. Does it ?

Sorry, example kEttuttu, rules-ai redefine paNNittu shoot-down paNNura maadhiri irukku. Didn't mean to do that. What I sought something like artist meant A, I thought B and we lived happily together ever after.

[P_R]

Watching "Being There" again now.'
Recommended to readers/writers of this thread :-)

[equanimus]

Anyway, if the point of debate was this specific, I wish we had started at this point! :lol:
Equa: pfoo ! இதுதான் பிரச்சனைன்னு தெரிஞ்சிருந்தா எப்பவோ தீர்ப்பு சொல்லிருப்பேனே
இல்ல, நான் அப்படி சொல்ல வரல. :oops: என்னையும் சேர்த்து தான் சொன்னேன். This discussion greatly helped me to better understand where I stand on this matter. Given the direction the discussion is taking now, I was just wondering if we were framing our arguments too abstractly to begin with.

[Plum]

Essentially, while your reading about Kamal portraying his own restrictions as a filmmaker via Guna, is interesting. The experience of the filmwatching does not hang on it. Does it ?
An example of where a film-maker actually allowed such an interpretation to flourish, and possibly hinted it as well - No Smoking - it did nary a thing for me. It falls under Feeyar's "make or break depending on getting the allusion" category I suppose. Whereas, for Gunaa, it is just another additional beautiful reading.

Considering this, one could probably empathise with P_R - which is something that has evolved for me over this thread because I wasnt sure where I stood when this thread started.

[P_R]

சித்தரிப்பில் நம்பகத்தன்மை பற்றி


Realism in literature is a pretence and shouldn't stop its pinnacle. The pinnacle would be a hyper-conversation/emotion. A conversation/emotion of such quality is rarely encountered in real life. Perhaps never. So it is an admitted departure from reality. The writer's job is to be credible enough to lead you up until that point.



I think we've digressed way too much already. I started out by responding to Scale's post on UP and MM, but then went on to make a much more general point.

Let's continue this all-important discussion elsewhere. :)

How does plausibility differ from believability ?
My contention is: a small dent on believability can have a disproportionately large negative effect on the viewing experience.

[equanimus]

PR,
I didn't mean to say plausibility and believability have different connotations. Just that I was talking about it in a specific context -- being concerned primarily about the plausibility. That's the difference I tried to highlight. You say, that is rarely the case. But I think it's much more common than you suggest. Where people review or view a film in an almost mechanical sense. This is how I think rationales like "the fewer the commercial elements (heroism, fight scenes, comedy tracks or what have you) the better the film" originate.

[equanimus]

And, like I said, the obligation runs both ways. The audience's willingness to believe can't be discounted, just like how the artist's effort to make it look believable can't be.

[equanimus]

My contention is: a small dent on believability can have a disproportionately large negative effect on the viewing experience.
I don't disagree with this at all.

[equanimus]

And I also fully agree with what Jeyamohan says. "This doesn't happen in real life" can't be the reasoning to reject a premise in a film. There has to be a more active engagement with the work. That's what I'm saying. As he says, the artist's talent lies in making all the imagined possibilities look believable, and the reader's in recognizing the need to believe in it so as to read/see (or should I say 'experience'?) what the artist imagines.

[P_R]

and the reader's in recognizing the need to believe in it so as to read/see Oh....this is what you meant-A when you said it works both ways. This is a difficult point.

For instance when going to novels says a few years back in time I have delude myself with a lie like: அந்த காலத்துல அப்பிடி பேசிருப்பாங்க போல. I manage to do that reasonably well unless the Novel makes some Victorian demands on me in the conversation ! :-)

But with a film it is a much bigger challenge.

Personal sidenote: This insistence on believability has scuttled many a story attempt of mine (தமிழ்த்தாய்'s natural check mechanism I guess :-) ).

Me: ஒரு ஊருல..
Mini me: (interrupts) நம்புற மாதிரியே இல்லை

[P_R]

[tscii:f8699a88de]அது என்னமோ தெர்ல என்ன மாயமோ தெர்ல...ஒரு விஷயத்தைப் பத்தி பேச்ட்டு (அ) சிந்தனையா இருந்துட்டு அப்புறம் எதையாச்சும் படிச்சா, படிக்கிறதெல்லாம் அதுக்குத் தொடர்பாவே இருக்கு.



நேரடியான தத்துவக் கூற்றுகளாக கருத்துக்களை முன்வைக்காமல் புனைவுக்குள் அவற்றைப் பொருத்தி, புனைவின் பகுதிகளாக ஒலிக்கச் செய்யும் தேவை அவற்றை இயற்றியவர்களுக்கு இருந்திருக்கிறது.

அந்தத் தேவை என்ன? புனைவு என்பது வாழ்வின் செறிவுபடுத்தப்பட்ட வடிவம். அப்படி தீவிரப்படுத்தப்பட்ட வாழ்க்கையின் பரப்பில் வைத்து தத்துவத்தை பரிசீலிக்கவும் விளக்கவும் வேண்டிய ஒரு கட்டாயம் இருந்திருக்கிறது இந்நூல்களின் ஆசிரியர்களுக்கு. பிரம்ம சூத்திரம் போல தூய தத்துவமாக இத்தரிசனங்களைக் கூறுவதற்குப் பதில் வாழ்வின் உச்ச நிலைகளாக முன்வைக்க விரும்பியிருக்கிறார்கள். அதாவது உபநிடதங்களில் வாழ்வில் இருந்து நேரடியாக தத்துவத்திற்குப் போகும் ஒரு ‘பாதை’ உள்ளது. அந்தப் பாதை மிக முக்கியமானது. சொல்லப்போனால், தத்துவம் அளவுக்கே அது முக்கியமானது.

இன்னும்கூட ஒன்றைச் சொல்லலாம், ஒரு தத்துவ தரிசனத்தை புனைவுத்தருணமாக மாற்றுவதன் மூலம் தத்துவ நூலுக்கு சாத்தியமில்லாத ஒரு கவித்துவத்தை உபநிடதங்கள் அடைகின்றன. தத்துவநூல் தூய தர்க்கம் மூலம் நம்மிடம் பேசுகிறது. அதில் கற்பனைக்கோ உள்ளுணர்வுக்கோ இடமில்லை. தத்துவத்தை புனைவுக்குள் தள்ளுவதன் மூலம் கற்பனையின் விரிவுக்கும் உள்ளுணர்வின் நுட்பமான ஊடுருவலுக்கும் இடம் ஏற்படுத்தித் தருகிறார் ஆசிரியர்!

and....


பெரும்பாலான ஆன்மீக அனுபவங்கள் அகவயமானவை. அவற்றை புறவயமாக விவாதிக்க முடியாது. ஏன் ஆன்மீகம் என்று செல்லவேண்டும். ஒரு கதையை நான் எப்படி உள்வாங்கி எழுதினேன் என்று நான் விவரிக்கிறேன் என்றிருக்கட்டும். நீங்கள் என்னிடம் விவாதிக்கமுடியுமா என்ன? அது என் சொந்த அனுபவம் அல்லவா?

நீங்கள் செய்வதற்கு ஒன்றே உள்ளது. ஒன்று, நீங்கள் அதைக்கூர்ந்து கவனித்து நான் சொல்லும் அனுபவத்திற்குள் நுழைய முயலலாம். அல்லது அதை நிராகரித்துவிடலாம். [/tscii:f8699a88de]

[P_R]

Read this in the wiki page about the film Mullholland Drive


On the other hand, Justin Theroux said of Lynch's feelings on the multiple meanings people perceive in the film, "I think he's genuinely happy for it to mean anything you want."

:prANayAmA:

[P_R]

Related reading (http://www.jeyamohan.in/?p=9454). Jeyamohan again.