Intentional Fallacy

[kid-glove]

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

d) Whatever works.

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.

[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

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]

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.

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)

[kid-glove]

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.”

[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]

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.