posted
Mel Gibson is, in my opinion, one of the most talented actors to ever be seen on the big screen. Not only that, but he has also proven his worth behind the camera as well, with Braveheart and The Passion. I consider myself an athiest, but The Passion still touched me as the story of a man, rather than a God. Ignoring its message for the moment, it was obviously made by somebody with considerable gifts. Now, was it anti-semitic? I didn't think so. Does the possibility that it's creator might be anti-semitic have anything whatsoever to do with my enjoyment of it as a piece of art? No.
I recently watched a movie that, if it were viewed by people outside of the proper context, could be taken as extremely anti-semitic. It was called "Downfall" and it was about Hitler's last days in his bunker in Berlin. Filled with rants against Jews, and speeches about the final solution and what not. I would not consider this movie anti-semitic. It is a portrait of madness. Now if this movie can say such things about Jews and still be great art, I propose that Mel Gibson can say pretty much whatever he wants about anybody, he'll still make great art, because he's a great artist. His personal feelings are none of my concern, and will not affect whether or not I go to see his movies, because they do not affect whether or not I enjoy his movies, and that is why I go to the movies. Not because I agree with the filmmaker's personal convictions, but because I enjoy his work. If you discovered the chef at your favorite restaurant was anti-semitic, I doubt you would stop eating there.
Posts: 127 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Dammit, I liked mel gibson movies. Are all actors bat-caca crazy???
If they're not howling liberals they're whacky-christian-homophobe(*)-anti-semites.
I think they're just flawed people, no different from anyone. But of course, our expectation about them are magnified and our images of them become kaleidoscopic panoramas of their screen characters, mixed with their politics, mixed with their personal appearances until you forget that this person gets up every day and the first thing they want is a peice of toast and some coffee, and check the e-mail.
You wouldn't be shocked and offended if the guy down the street turned out to be a drunken anti-semite, but you are shocked by this because the actor's "relationship" with you is shattered. You felt close to him because you seemed to know him maybe, or you felt that he knew something about you because you've seen and understood his movies.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you discovered the chef at your favorite restaurant was anti-semitic, I doubt you would stop eating there.
Actually, that's a pretty big assumption for you to make. I think if anti-semitism was an issue that was important to you(the general you), not eating at a restaurant with an anti-semitic cook would not be that big of a stetch. It's called moral convictions, people exersize them all the time.
If you found out the chef at your favorite restaurant was a child abusing murderer, you would continue to eat there right? What they with their own time has no effect on the food they make, right?
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's like not supporting a business with your money because you don't agree with a certain facet of their business. Almost everyone I know won't give money to one or more businesses, local or global, because of something they don't agree with in regards to the people involved, the corporate practices, etc...
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: If you found out the chef at your favorite restaurant was a child abusing murderer, you would continue to eat there right? What they with their own time has no effect on the food they make, right?
Correct. However, if they were a child abusing murderer, I doubt that they would be a chef at my favorite restaurant.
Posts: 127 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
What if they had at one point in their lives dated your significant other and beat them up? Would that be enough for you to not frequent their restaurant?
At what point does something that someone does or believes offend you enough that you don't associate with them or want to help them out in the slightest bit. From what you say, there is no line for you. There is never a connection between the service provided and the person providing it. Would you take a job on the death star? Would you work a desk job for Hitler because it was good money and who cares where the money comes from?
Are you a minority? Or if not, lets say you're white, and you frequent a restaurant where the owner is of color and freely proclaims that all white people should be shot and killed because they are an inferior race. Would you still eat there?
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by GForce: His personal feelings are none of my concern, and will not affect whether or not I go to see his movies, because they do not affect whether or not I enjoy his movies, and that is why I go to the movies. Not because I agree with the filmmaker's personal convictions, but because I enjoy his work. If you discovered the chef at your favorite restaurant was anti-semitic, I doubt you would stop eating there.
You completely ignore the question of the nature of art and your interest in it. This is simply too shallow an understanding of art to endure very long. If you value the form over the source of the work all the time, then you deny yourself the ability to discern motive from an artist. Motive is important. Motive exists. You're simply choosing to ignore it, and that's not good enough for me.
edit: The general reaction to your comment about restaurantuers should tell you that most people DO value some knowledge and understanding of intent. Intent does not supercede form, and we can't forgive BAD artistic expression because we agree with the intent either, but we must be aware of it consciously, because we are already aware of it unconsciously.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
When there is no relationship between what somebody does and the ways in which our beliefs differ, I see no reason to boycott them. If I boycott a certain gasoline company (Exxon) it is because our ideas about the environment differ. There's a relationship there. The belief (whether we should drill in ANWR) and the service (gasoline) are related. In no way would my boycotting a restaurant change somebody's mind about Jews. Now if the service this hypothetical anti-semite provided was monument construction, I would probably not hire him to build my Holocaust memorial. As for the crazy restaurant owner you put forward, if I was allowed in the restaurant, and felt safe enough, I see no reason why I wouldn't eat there.
And as for the Death Star, there were a lot of good, innocent civilian contractors killed when that thing went up. The second one at least.
Posts: 127 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by GForce: When there is no relationship between what somebody does and the ways in which our beliefs differ, I see no reason to boycott them.
And you think there is EVER an instance where someone's artistic will is not related to their ideas and beliefs about the world? Seriously, think about this: he is putting his stamp on films with an extreme slant toward his personal beliefs. There is a connection there. Its an obvious one.
Edit: I can see too that this is a discussion that could get very vexing and non-productive. I have to leave for the rest of the day now, so I hope you can be satisfied with reviewing my comments on the philosophy of art from the first page as my argument against your view. I would hardly like to sit here and repeat it over and over again.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And this chef that I (apparently unwisely) brought up. He and I would have a beef if we had fundamental differences in opinion in what wine should be served with filet mingon. I'm there for the food, not a lecture.
Posts: 127 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again you are all assuming he is anti semetic
If you were at your favorite restaurant and you found out that somebody talked to somebody who interviewed a police man who said the chef said some anti semitic comments while under the influence of alcohol and then later wrote a seemingly sincere letter of apology for everything he said and did.
Would you still eat there?
Some of you might not, I still would, but hey thats me.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're straying too far from the topic. Film is expressive, food is not the same kind of medium. I would drop the analogy as a bad job and leave it at that.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by GForce: And as for the Death Star, there were a lot of good, innocent civilian contractors killed when that thing went up. The second one at least.
Dude, it's a shame Hatrack doesn't have .sigs, because I would totally put this in mine. Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
AP (New York) The United Nations condemned the Rebel Alliance today for their destruction of The Death Star. "The Rebels killed thousands of civilians," said Kofi Anan, "We can not sit by as this Massacre happens without condemning it in the strongest possible language."
The Death Star Masscare isn't the first time The Rebel Alliance has murdered thousands of civilians. Just six years ago, the Rebels destroyed the first Death Star, despite the fact that most people on the Death Star had no ill will toward them and didn't support The Emporor or his Second in command, Lord Vader.
Leah Organa could not be reached for comment.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:posted by GForce: And as for the Death Star, there were a lot of good, innocent civilian contractors killed when that thing went up. The second one at least.
Not to mention a whole bunch of poor Wookie slaves... Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Come now, they'd never call it the Death Star Massacre. Too many people would wonder at a machine called the Death Star. It'd be called the Mega Ore Extractor or something equally innocuous.
So that becomes the MOE Massacre, which of course just leads to mo' rebels, mo' problems.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:... take a good long look at his official apology. He's avoiding directly addressing the issues of his drunken 'I hate jews and they suck and their stupid hats suck' commentary.
I figured this addressed that:
quote:I ... said things that I do not believe to be true and which are despicable. I am deeply ashamed of everything I said.
I don't know whether he's anti-semitic or not.
I'm not sure he's anti-semetic either, but it is an incredibly safe bet. Part of it involves how he's not yet addressed and apologized for his anti-jew commentary directly, as in saying 'I am sorry I said what I did about jews.' He will most likely have to in the near future.
The 'gloss mode' is just me observing a further mistake, one which fits in with a pattern that makes it easy to assume that, yes, Mel is most likely harboring a lot of anti-Jewish mentality. A pattern that started long ago, not with this drunken debacle, not with Passion, but rather with his defense of his father, Hutton Gibson.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Indeed, Lisa, the phrase, "In wine, truth" did not arise in a vacuum. The best and worst things in a man can shake loose in a man when his conscious mind gives way to his id... aided by copious amounts of alcohol.
Of Mel Gibson, really, who didn't see this coming? His Jesus-freakery really came to the fore in "Signs", shortly after which he embarked on "The Jesus Chainsaw Massacre".
Who could have predicted that he would have followed in his father's Holocaust-denying footsteps? Besides anyone who knew him or kept track of his press...
I will go so far as to predict this: here is a man second only to Kevin Costner in his Hollywood messiah complex. His next movie (by which I mean, after Apocalypica) will involve the character he plays sacrificing himself to save us all from eternal damnation. I'm thinking Riggs vs. Satan in a steel cage match.
Posts: 196 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
[edit] I didn't see the page had turned. Seems like the thread was about dead...[/edit]
There is some research that alcoholics are more impaired than "normal" people by the same amount of alcohol. Unfortunately, I can't link to it because it was something I saw in a book once. It goes against the idea of building up a tolerance, but if this was an actual relapse...
Anyway, I was one of those nerds who persisted in not seeing the Passion, since Gibson played the agnostic card back when he was promoting "Signs". He's just another Hollywood guy as far as I'm concerned.
But I believe he is bearing the brunt for saying what an awful lot of people have been thinking of late.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think what some actor said while drunk in any way matters to me, except to illustrate why one probably doesn't want to get drunk, especially if one is a famous actor.
quote:You completely ignore the question of the nature of art and your interest in it. This is simply too shallow an understanding of art to endure very long. If you value the form over the source of the work all the time, then you deny yourself the ability to discern motive from an artist.
Art exists independently from the artist.
One can choose to look for motives behind works of art, but I think that is among the shallowest ways to appreciate any work of art, for two reasons: Firstly, it is nearly impossible to understand the motivation behind a work of art; more likely you are just putting your own motivations into the artists head. And secondly, what an artist's opinion about the world is is not very important. For instance, what Mel Gibson thinks about Jews is pretty much totally unimportant to any of us in any real way.
There are much more meaningful ways to approach works of art. If you get too distracted in the artist's opinions, then it will make you unable to appreciate that artist's works in the way they deserve. You may not like OSC's political columns, for instance, but you should still be able to appreciate Ender's Game for what it is. If you let your views on OSC's politics prevent you from doing so, I think you are being unfair to Ender's Game. In the same way, if you can't enjoy Mel Gibson movies because he gave you the impression he is an anti-semite, then you may be acting fairly towards Gibson, but you are not fairly judging his films, which exist and have great value entirely independent from him.
Of course, then again, the main person you hurt if you do this is yourself. You'd be the one missing out, and presumably it would barely effect Gibson.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
Not so much. Art is about the interaction between you and the piece. On its own it's just coloured paint on a semi-absorbant surface. On your own there's no art. Together, you are seeing, and interpreting what you see - and that is where the art comes into it. Meaning is not absolute - shown perfectly in the poem Ozymandias. The line "Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair" meant exactly that, despair because I am so much more mighty than you, when the fictional Ozymandias had it engraved. In the context of the poem, it means despair, because look how mighty he obviously was, and look how it has lasted - not at all. Your achievements are fleeting, human. And so on. The meaning depends on the context, so too with other forms of art. Now that's not to say that the meaning in one context is more valid than the meaning out of that context, but I don't want to get into the debate about which is more valid "the meaning of the artist" or "the different meanings that the viewers believe it means", as that's very long, involved and off subject, but it is true to say that you cannot experience the intended meaning of the piece without knowing about the artist, the cultural context, the related pieces that it may draw on, and often, with rubbish modern art (excuse that opinion, it's just an opinion) the actual explicit explanation of the artist themselves.
posted
I take a middle road to this art vs artist myself. Most fo the time I will see anything that interests me. I loved Powder, even though the director was a freak.
But sometimes I can't distance myself. If I find myself feeling strongly about something, strongly enough that it affects my perception of the art itself, then I think that it needs to be considered.
It isn't black and white.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: But I believe he is bearing the brunt for saying what an awful lot of people have been thinking of late.
So pooka doesn't like Jews any more than she likes gays. I wish I could say I'm surprised.
Pooka didn't say anything against Jews. She was simply stating the fact that the majority of the world is turning against Israel and it's millitary actions. Making a personal attack in response to that quote shows a lot more about you than pooka.
Posts: 1594 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:posted by Tresopax: Art exists independently from the artist.
I have to strongly disagree with this. An artist puts something of him/herself into anything they create, be it their insecurities, their passions, or just their way of viewing the world.
Every work of art is a self portrait.
quote:Firstly, it is nearly impossible to understand the motivation behind a work of art; more likely you are just putting your own motivations into the artists head.
Again, I disagree. It is very possible to read into the motivations behind a work of art; sometimes, it can be very easy to do so. In fact, were it impossible to understand what's going on behind the canvas, so to speak, the value of art would be greatly decreased. We'd lose an important part of the dialogue between the artist, the artwork, and the viewer.
It's not always easy to decipher art. Many of us, I think, are only aware of the visual language on a subconcious level. If someone were to point out to us that a horizontal line often evokes stability, while a diagonal one imparts motion, we might shrug and say, "well, of course." These visual codings are so ingrained into our culture that we're not aware of them most of the time.
Which is fine. Having the associations exist at a primordial level can heighten the impact of what the viewer (or listener, for that matter) is experiencing. But that doesn't mean we can only access art in an intuitive way. When we view a scene from a movie in which the main character kneels in the rain sobbing while a piano plays a slow, heavy tune, everyone instantly understands that this is at least supposed to be sad. But if we stop and think about it, we can easily isolate the individual elements of the scene that impart this.
quote:If you get too distracted in the artist's opinions, then it will make you unable to appreciate that artist's works in the way they deserve
I think you are right in essence here, but I don't think OSC is a good comparison to make to Gibson. OSC is fairly well known for keeping his politics out of his writing, when appropriate. And, in my opinion, he has good judgment about what appropriate means in this context. Also, boycotting an author because you disagree with his stance on the Bush administration is kind of nutty. Boycotting a bigot (assuming Gibson is one) doesn't seem to me to be over the line.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Not even GHANDI believed in Jews as equals to a degree.
[/End bad tasted joke]
Ghandi was also a amazingly racist against blacks
I seriously doubt the majority of people know whether or not Ghandi was racist against blacks. Please do not call him racist against blacks unless you can demonstrate some sort of proof of this.
Seems contradictory since he was in favor of aboloshing the caste system.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But seriously, he didn't believe in jews as equals to a degree. Why isn't that hard to believe? Just because he was in favor of abolishing the caste system, does not mean he believed everyone was equal. Here's some proof that he was racist against blacks:
posted
The gloss mode I talked about has officially ended.
quote:"There is no excuse, nor should there be any tolerance, for anyone who thinks or expresses any kind of anti-Semitic remark," Gibson said in a statement.
"I want to apologize specifically to everyone in the Jewish community for the vitriolic and harmful words that I said to a law enforcement officer the night I was arrested," he added.
Not even GHANDI believed in Jews as equals to a degree.
[/End bad tasted joke]
Ghandi was also a amazingly racist against blacks
I seriously doubt the majority of people know whether or not Ghandi was racist against blacks. Please do not call him racist against blacks unless you can demonstrate some sort of proof of this.
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: But seriously, he didn't believe in jews as equals to a degree. Why isn't that hard to believe? Just because he was in favor of abolishing the caste system, does not mean he believed everyone was equal. Here's some proof that he was racist against blacks:
None of what you posted convinces me that Ghandi saw all black people as less than himself. From reading what you have posted Gandhi was opposed to the actions of native Africans.
Your sites use the caste system as the groundwork for Gandhi's alleged racism and that is utterly retarded. Gandhi was killed by a hindu extremists precisely because he was trying to destroy the caste system and because he treated Muslim Indians as equals with Hindu Indians.
The assertion that he fought against blacks in the military is rediculous because he was a citizen of South Africa and therefore obligated to help. He also encouraged others to assist the apartheid govt in order to legitimize their claims for citizenship. The regiment he was tied to was an Ambulence Corps and it was one of only a few that assisted wounded black South Africans.
Gandhi was focused on assisting his own ethnic group and there is nothing wrong with that. We do not yell Frederick Douglas for not trying to secure the rights of white women to vote first before working towards getting the vote to blacks.
I see absolutely NO real evidence that Gandhi was racist against black people.
At worst, he looked down on the indolent native African that spent all their time idling and trying to secure cows in order to purchase another wife. He never once says that all people with black skin are sub human. All of the comments used to prove Gandhi's racism towards blacks are during his South African days before he did his work in India.
Not only do I not think he is racist, but even if you could prove he was, he certainly did not exhibit racist sentiments when he went to India and fought for the rights of all Indians even those who hated him.
I am completely unconvinced that Ghandi was a racist towards blacks.
I think there might be a stronger case that he was prejudice towards Jews, but I've yet to find proof of that either.
After doing some reading about Gandhi's attitude towards the Jews I am convinced that he was not prejudiced towards them either.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:posted by Tresopax: Art exists independently from the artist.
I have to strongly disagree with this. An artist puts something of him/herself into anything they create, be it their insecurities, their passions, or just their way of viewing the world.
Every work of art is a self portrait.
quote:Firstly, it is nearly impossible to understand the motivation behind a work of art; more likely you are just putting your own motivations into the artists head.
Again, I disagree. It is very possible to read into the motivations behind a work of art; sometimes, it can be very easy to do so. In fact, were it impossible to understand what's going on behind the canvas, so to speak, the value of art would be greatly decreased. We'd lose an important part of the dialogue between the artist, the artwork, and the viewer.
It's not always easy to decipher art. Many of us, I think, are only aware of the visual language on a subconcious level. If someone were to point out to us that a horizontal line often evokes stability, while a diagonal one imparts motion, we might shrug and say, "well, of course." These visual codings are so ingrained into our culture that we're not aware of them most of the time.
Which is fine. Having the associations exist at a primordial level can heighten the impact of what the viewer (or listener, for that matter) is experiencing. But that doesn't mean we can only access art in an intuitive way. When we view a scene from a movie in which the main character kneels in the rain sobbing while a piano plays a slow, heavy tune, everyone instantly understands that this is at least supposed to be sad. But if we stop and think about it, we can easily isolate the individual elements of the scene that impart this.
quote:If you get too distracted in the artist's opinions, then it will make you unable to appreciate that artist's works in the way they deserve
I think you are right in essence here, but I don't think OSC is a good comparison to make to Gibson. OSC is fairly well known for keeping his politics out of his writing, when appropriate. And, in my opinion, he has good judgment about what appropriate means in this context. Also, boycotting an author because you disagree with his stance on the Bush administration is kind of nutty. Boycotting a bigot (assuming Gibson is one) doesn't seem to me to be over the line.
Artwork (and poetry, and writing, and music, and other forms of expression), once created, cannot exist independent of the artist any more than a Civic is ever not a Honda, or a child is not the genetic offspring of the parents in question.
At the same time, interpretations of that work can exclude all aspects of the artist's involvement and intentions. If a friend links me to a random piece of online artwork, odds are I'm going to interpret it as I see fit with zero consideration for what the artist may or may not have been trying to accomplish. If my interpretation and reaction happen to coincide with what the artist intended, I still feel that the interpretation exists independent of the artist.
Posts: 246 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: But seriously, he didn't believe in jews as equals to a degree. Why isn't that hard to believe? Just because he was in favor of abolishing the caste system, does not mean he believed everyone was equal. Here's some proof that he was racist against blacks:
None of what you posted convinces me that Ghandi saw all black people as less than himself. From reading what you have posted Gandhi was opposed to the actions of native Africans.
Your sites use the caste system as the groundwork for Gandhi's alleged racism and that is utterly retarded. Gandhi was killed by a hindu extremists precisely because he was trying to destroy the caste system and because he treated Muslim Indians as equals with Hindu Indians.
The assertion that he fought against blacks in the military is rediculous because he was a citizen of South Africa and therefore obligated to help. He also encouraged others to assist the apartheid govt in order to legitimize their claims for citizenship. The regiment he was tied to was an Ambulence Corps and it was one of only a few that assisted wounded black South Africans.
Gandhi was focused on assisting his own ethnic group and there is nothing wrong with that. We do not yell Frederick Douglas for not trying to secure the rights of white women to vote first before working towards getting the vote to blacks.
I see absolutely NO real evidence that Gandhi was racist against black people.
At worst, he looked down on the indolent native African that spent all their time idling and trying to secure cows in order to purchase another wife. He never once says that all people with black skin are sub human. All of the comments used to prove Gandhi's racism towards blacks are during his South African days before he did his work in India.
Not only do I not think he is racist, but even if you could prove he was, he certainly did not exhibit racist sentiments when he went to India and fought for the rights of all Indians even those who hated him.
I am completely unconvinced that Ghandi was a racist towards blacks.
I think there might be a stronger case that he was prejudice towards Jews, but I've yet to find proof of that either.
After doing some reading about Gandhi's attitude towards the Jews I am convinced that he was not prejudiced towards them either.
Wow, proof right in front of you, and still you chose to be blind. Wow.
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: So it's ok for him to be an anti-Semite, because lots of people are?
Seriously?
She didn't say it was okay.
She certainly implied it.
And the man was not condemning Israel's actions (which I think is perfectly acceptable, whether or not I agree with someone's views). He was saying unprintable things about Jews. (And just to be clear, that is NOT ok.)
To claim that he is getting flak because he had the bad luck to be caught saying "what everyone is thinking" implies that pooka either thinks it's ok for many people to have nasty opinions of Jews (and I don't believe she does, which is why I requested clarification); or that she is failing to make a distinction between some pretty vile anti-semitism and dislike of the actions of the Israeli government. There is quite a difference, IMO.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: The gloss mode I talked about has officially ended.
quote:"There is no excuse, nor should there be any tolerance, for anyone who thinks or expresses any kind of anti-Semitic remark," Gibson said in a statement.
"I want to apologize specifically to everyone in the Jewish community for the vitriolic and harmful words that I said to a law enforcement officer the night I was arrested," he added.
quote:Art is about the interaction between you and the piece.
I agree. But I said art is independent of the artist, not that it is independent of you who is viewing it - it needs not be an interaction between you and an artist.
quote:I have to strongly disagree with this. An artist puts something of him/herself into anything they create, be it their insecurities, their passions, or just their way of viewing the world.
The same is true with children, but that doesn't mean children are not independent from their parents, and it certainly doesn't mean that disliking a child's parents means you can't appreciate the child.
quote:Artwork (and poetry, and writing, and music, and other forms of expression), once created, cannot exist independent of the artist any more than a Civic is ever not a Honda, or a child is not the genetic offspring of the parents in question.
As I said above, I think children do exist independently from their parents. And cars do exist independently from the car company that makes them. Frankly, I don't think you need to know a car maker's intentions in order to appreciate their car.
quote:It is very possible to read into the motivations behind a work of art; sometimes, it can be very easy to do so. In fact, were it impossible to understand what's going on behind the canvas, so to speak, the value of art would be greatly decreased.
I would say "somewhat decreased" instead of "greatly decreased". There are some works that I think lose a lot of their value if you don't know what they are intended to be about. But I think that with most works, especially those that are most meaningful to you, the intentions of the artist are more of a footnote to what the work itself is to you who views it.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
