DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**Imihooniump** · 01-13-2010, 05:41 AM

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)

01-13-2010, 05:41 AM	#37
Imihooniump Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 468 Senior Member	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)
	Quote