If the artist's meaning is not important, then what's the point of art? The artist expresses nothing and we cannot be enriched by his art, for we will only be able to come away with what we bring, and nothing else. No one benefits.
If the artist's meaning is important, we may get something different out of the art, depending on what we bring to it, but, invariably, we can find another point of view that we did not have before, because that point of view was supplied by the artist.
Experiment: try rereading a book that you enjoyed, say five or ten years ago. Why did you like it then? Now? What more did you get out of it this time, having grown in body and mind? Did you get more of the author's meaning? Did you appreciate it more now, or then?
The nation part above reffered to Mr. dark's response.
Groon: The artist's art is important to the artist; but you are right in thinking that we get out of art only what we bring. Two artists, starting out with the same intention, can create two different art pieces. You will like one of the pieces, another person will like the other. Both of you will argue that the piece you like more is better at conveying the artist's meanings. The only reason why you do argue is because you have different life experiances and outlooks on life, and hence you are more akin to one form of meaning conveyance, as opposed to the other. For example, to convey anguish, Munch drew the Scream, while Dali his Appocalypse. Which one conveys anguish better? You will invariably pick one of the two; I may very well pick the other. A seperate discussion could follow on what the artist really tried to convey, and, unfortunately, sometimes they don't even know themselves. Sometimes, they may say something which seems beyond reason, ie, Munch could say that he tried to convey happiness through his painting. What then? Finally, the discussion could be between us: you could argue that Much tried to convey anguish, and I could argue that he tried to convey love. It is this last discussion which is most relevant, I think, once the discussion on the artist's actual personal meaning is omitted.
PTerran, why do you disagree with part a)?
Here's your statement: "A) he is a war president with war on his mind. . ." referring, of course, to President Bush.
I disagree because Bush is a President during war. I infer from your statement that you mean Bush is solely a President who's interested in conducting foreign policy using only war as an option. Of course, that's absurd, if that's what you mean. War on his mind? Okay. But I'd guess he has the economy on his mind as well. So why not say he's an economy president with the economy on his mind? The office itself is complex and immune to blanket statements. You're a sharp enough thinker to make a more nuanced observation.
About your points about art and the recipient's reaction being most important, I agree with you to some extent. You might agree it's more of a two-way street between the artist and the recipient; each brings something to the work of art (While not necessarily bringing something away from it!) I disagree that because there might be 4 billion reactions there might as well be none at all. Certainly there's plenty of room for disagreement that doesn't mean each opinion is as valid as the other. In your example, I might claim the Munch painting shows his reaction to the possibility of life on Mars. In an infinite universe, everything is possible and I might possibly be right. But, really, I wouldn't, would I?
Part A) was said by the president himself; I think I gave the direct quotation somewhere above. To further support it, consider this: He atacked Afghanistan, he attacked Iraq, he labled N Korea and Iran Evil Nations, and told them they might be next. Furthermore, he started the "war on terror", whatever that is.
He in only in a time of war because he decided to be in war himself. Acts of terrorism by nationless thugs are not act of war (sept 11). Terror can be spread by a nation on another nation, or by a group of people on a nation, or on another group of people. The "War on Terror" is an artificial construct that really means nothing, but it does sound nice. I therefore disagree with you that he was placed in a time of war; I think he started the war (I mean the Iraqi and Afgahnistan war in this sentence as I don't consider the terror war a war). I'd love to go into this discussion. Let me know if you do to.
And yes, your point of view may be equally valid (the marsian reference). I may disagree with it, but I can't prove you wrong if you insist on it (maybe your life experiances will lead you to take that meaning out of his painting; who knows? Will I then have the right to say that you're wrong?)
Wow. This is my first time to these boards and I must say one thing: Calm the Hell Down! Boards are suppose to be places where people can talk and exchange ideas, not scream and yell.
Now that I have said that, are you all stupid? Of course Bush is an evil Hitler-like warmonger. Hitler killed Jews, Bush kills Muslims. Wow big difference!
Hitler invaded Poland for power, Bush invaded Iraq for oil. Wow big difference!
What I don't get, is how stupid my fellow Americans can be. The whole world, the WHOLE WORLD was telling us that there were no WMDs in Iraq and we didn't believe them. No, why, cause Americans are smarter than Europeans, well I guess they showed us whose the stupid little child and whose the grown up. Hell, I'm gonna stop before I say something I'm gonna regret (aka Bush's SS, the CIA, busts my door down and arrests me for treason.)
For someone who's calling us all to calm down, you need to calm down. I see your points, but can you tune your rhethoric down a bit? We can all understand your points, for we're all intelligent people out here, and you shouldn't call any one of us by derrogatory names. Ok? By the way - I know plenty of smart Amricans myself; you guys are not a "lost nation".
Screw you Canadian! If Canada wasn't all the way in Europe, I would drive to where you live and kick your ass!
I refuse to talk to you.
Not worth a response. And not even tangentially related to Bradbury or art.
A rant, based on assumptions.
(Directed at T2 -- didn't see the intervening posts)
[This message has been edited by Mr. Dark (edited 03-04-2004).]
You are right my friend. I have erred in my ways. Are all Canadians as Wise as you are, Holy One?
Do you lead a cult, for if you do, I would love to recieve one of your pamphlets, or if you wanna join my cult, the KKK, feel free to, It'll be fun.
I have found God, and His name is Translator!
I sincerely apologize to the "old hands" on this site. I wanted to make an honest effort to steer this thread back to Bradbury - to the specific topic of state censorship, which I think was Dandelion's original intent with this - but I can see now that all I'm doing is inviting further political discussion that has little to do with Bradbury.
I'm hatching an idea, though, that might help, so bear with me.
Please note: this is a G-rated site for the most part. Students of varying grade levels use this as a valuable source of research. You're tone and use of language may not be appreciated. (As a father of two, I wouldn't want them using this site if your posts were typical.) So, please, I'm not asking you to change your point of view; I'm asking you to be careful of how you express yourself.
Didn't take me as long as I thought.
Everyone: I've started a new thread under Ray's legacy. Doesn't seem as crowded over there. Why not take a look and tell me what you think?
Dandelion, as moderator, if I'm out of line, shut me down over there and I'll desist.
You have my blessing on the new thread, although portions of this one may be scrubbed.
Oh Boy, this thread has gone to pot.
I didn't realize that I had signed up for the debate team and I'm sorry if I contributed to the mayhem.
"He who builds, sows, plants, and launches ideas is inhabited by the Creator.
"He who destroys, cuts down, and criticizes is under the dominion of the devil."
|Powered by Social Strata||Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7|