Every single piece of writing, ever painting, every photograph or even every building has a story behind it.
The artist tries to project an idea through a particular medium. This idea is either a crystallization of thought or more often than not it is something that must be presented to people because they expect it of him. Why is the latter true? This is because an idea is a a shadowy reflection of the artist. He has latched a little bit of his soul to his work and people will judge the real being through this creation. It is for this precise reason that whenever we read a book we like, or we listen to some good music..we want to know who WAS the artist. What was he like?..is he anything like the image we have created in our minds or was he different?
This can be a good thing and a bad thing. It's a good thing because by knowing more about the history of the piece, we can extract the meaning attached to the text by the author her/himself and we will then understand what she/he was trying to tell us.
It is a bad thing because sometimes a piece can have no more importance than what we understand from it by reading it without any thought of the creator. Time can lend more shades of meaning to something that was not intended in the first place. The subsequent events that followed Salman Rushdie's book, "Midnight's Children" made the book much more important and valuable.
Not only that the text may have an entirely different meaning for me altogether because of various factors like my cultural upbringing, my opinions, ideas etc.etc.
The above is basically something we've learned in our literature course this semester. And I've found it extraordinarily interesting. But basically, what is the "truth"...which story is "right"?
Is it the author's story? or should we completely cut the author from his text after publication?
I think that there is no "correct" view. Just like relativity..there is no frame of reference that is the true or the only frame. Both stories are important and both stories are enmeshed in history. Neither can be overlooked.
So why is this important for me? As an abstract speculation it is pleasing and sort of brings out this sort of similarity between science and arts.
i just feel that every day we confuse these two perspectives. We are always switching between what we want to do and what others expect of us. If we feel that a certain set of people will "read" something in a particular way we will do our best to "write" our story from their perspective.
Now it can still be debated as to whether we are not really still involving our true selves in this because by doing something "expected" by a certain set of people we are automatically setting this set of people apart. This classification can be unique.
Generally however, this forestalling of what others read is the reason we subscribe to the "herd mentality". If we don't follow the crowd and do something different and are then proved wrong then our estimation in the eyes of the people we like and respect automatically falls. We read this response in advance by placing ourselves in their shoes and hence decide not to risk our "value" to them and do the general thing whereas we might have done something different.
It is this also, which set Roark aside in "The Fountainhead". He is true to his perspective and is indifferent to other people "reading" his work.
This note is merely a crystallization of my own thought process.
i realize that everything I do has a meaning attached to it. Everyone else is perfectly right in judging my action based on their principles without trying to delve into mine.
Its an odd world....
The artist tries to project an idea through a particular medium. This idea is either a crystallization of thought or more often than not it is something that must be presented to people because they expect it of him. Why is the latter true? This is because an idea is a a shadowy reflection of the artist. He has latched a little bit of his soul to his work and people will judge the real being through this creation. It is for this precise reason that whenever we read a book we like, or we listen to some good music..we want to know who WAS the artist. What was he like?..is he anything like the image we have created in our minds or was he different?
This can be a good thing and a bad thing. It's a good thing because by knowing more about the history of the piece, we can extract the meaning attached to the text by the author her/himself and we will then understand what she/he was trying to tell us.
It is a bad thing because sometimes a piece can have no more importance than what we understand from it by reading it without any thought of the creator. Time can lend more shades of meaning to something that was not intended in the first place. The subsequent events that followed Salman Rushdie's book, "Midnight's Children" made the book much more important and valuable.
Not only that the text may have an entirely different meaning for me altogether because of various factors like my cultural upbringing, my opinions, ideas etc.etc.
The above is basically something we've learned in our literature course this semester. And I've found it extraordinarily interesting. But basically, what is the "truth"...which story is "right"?
Is it the author's story? or should we completely cut the author from his text after publication?
I think that there is no "correct" view. Just like relativity..there is no frame of reference that is the true or the only frame. Both stories are important and both stories are enmeshed in history. Neither can be overlooked.
So why is this important for me? As an abstract speculation it is pleasing and sort of brings out this sort of similarity between science and arts.
i just feel that every day we confuse these two perspectives. We are always switching between what we want to do and what others expect of us. If we feel that a certain set of people will "read" something in a particular way we will do our best to "write" our story from their perspective.
Now it can still be debated as to whether we are not really still involving our true selves in this because by doing something "expected" by a certain set of people we are automatically setting this set of people apart. This classification can be unique.
Generally however, this forestalling of what others read is the reason we subscribe to the "herd mentality". If we don't follow the crowd and do something different and are then proved wrong then our estimation in the eyes of the people we like and respect automatically falls. We read this response in advance by placing ourselves in their shoes and hence decide not to risk our "value" to them and do the general thing whereas we might have done something different.
It is this also, which set Roark aside in "The Fountainhead". He is true to his perspective and is indifferent to other people "reading" his work.
This note is merely a crystallization of my own thought process.
i realize that everything I do has a meaning attached to it. Everyone else is perfectly right in judging my action based on their principles without trying to delve into mine.
Its an odd world....

