[secondmortgages]

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?

[Fouttysotlalf]

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

[hechicxxrr]

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 . 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 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.

[Wluwsdtn]

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.

[Friend_Joe]

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 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.

[Heaneisismich]

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' 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.

[Spalax]

What is the 'intention' of this thread?

[Giselle]

Does the intention of the artist matter
a) Always
b) Never
c) It depends d) Whatever works.

[TheLucyLee]

Will reveal another reason why I am annoyed. I dismiss most of current Tamil short story writing . 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.

[Antelpebabe]

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)?

[Pharmaciest2007]

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

[simmons latex mattress]

Originally Posted by 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.

[Lapsinuibense]

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

[Creva4k]

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.

[Ceriopal]

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

[largonioulurI]

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

[Imihooniump]

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)

[gogona]

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.”

[Tactattcahhaw]

[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.

[Mr_White]

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.