Does the creator or the audience determine the meaning of a work of art?
-
Original question by @[email protected]
Both imo. The creator can mean something but you can have something mean whatever you want to yourself.
-
Original question by @[email protected]
Neither, I personally determine the meaning of art. Please feel welcome to ask about any pieces you are unsure of
-
Original question by @[email protected]
I don't remember who said it (so I'm likely butchering the phrase), but I've heard that any creative work exists in three forms: The mind of the author, the physical copy, and the mind of the audience.
For example, a book/story exists as the author intends, as the author writes, and as the reader interprets.
No one of the three is more "correct" than the other.
-
Original question by @[email protected]
The audience, obviously. That's the majority of people who are going to experience it. Why would I watch anything if I can't have my own opinions on it?
-
Original question by @[email protected]
Only this guy decides https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpmI7w57MKw
-
Original question by @[email protected]
I argue for the audience for two reasons:
-
The subjective experience for every individual will be different with any form of art.
-
The audience is what determines if something is "art", so without the audience the creator isn't producing "art".
-
-
Original question by @[email protected]
Both, and also neither. The creator can have their own vision, the collective crowd can have their own, but you as an individual can have an interpretation outside of either of those. And none are any more valid than the rest.
-
Neither, I personally determine the meaning of art. Please feel welcome to ask about any pieces you are unsure of
I would like to understand the meaning of Goatse.
-
I would like to understand the meaning of Goatse.
“It’s worth it to push through the pain!”
-
Original question by @[email protected]
The artist can be wrong about their own work.
-
Original question by @[email protected]
art as in drawings, or as in cinema? if its in cinema, yea audience has alot of influence over it.
-
art as in drawings, or as in cinema? if its in cinema, yea audience has alot of influence over it.
If it's drawn art, yeah, same.
-
Original question by @[email protected]
The creator (ideally) knows what they wanted to say, their effectiveness in expressing it is skill-dependent. Those engaged with their content should be able to understand what the creator tried to say, which is also skill-dependent (if you're clever enough you can even understand what the creator wanted to say even if they don't communicate it properly/at all!). You can also 'take it' this or that way, even while knowing that the creator didn't mean it that way.
-
Original question by @[email protected]
Art is subjective, so there is no one singular meaning.
-
Original question by @[email protected]
Meaning only exists as experienced by someone particular in a specific situation in time and space. The meaning-making processes in these situations assume a configuration of previous experiences, and probably conventions, languages, agreements on symbols and metaphors, technologies and so on. "The work" doesn't have any meaning outside of these situations (maybe it doesn't even exist, depending on how you define it). The author normally has no control over these situations and thus cannot, practically speaking, determine any meaning. But probably there is neither a "the audience" that can "determine" anything. The audience likely consists of several elements that create meanings in different ways across space and time.
Related issues:
The author/creator/performer had an intention that they themselves get to decide. But this intention is not universally and necessarily the same as "the meaning of the work".Practically speaking, the purpose of the audience is often to understand the intention of the author/creator.
Discussions of authorial intent may be useful and interesting: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorial_intent
-
Original question by @[email protected]
If the creator intended a meaning for the piece, the creator.
If the creator made something just for the fun of it and came up with a meaning afterwards, still the creator.
The audience can't change that but what they can do is to not give a fuck about what the creator thinks so they are free give whatever meaning they want. Specially when the authors are no longer around to complain or explain what were their intentions.
-
Both, and also neither. The creator can have their own vision, the collective crowd can have their own, but you as an individual can have an interpretation outside of either of those. And none are any more valid than the rest.
I disagree. The vision of the creator is the only one that can't be denied. The entire world can have their own but only one brought it to existence.
-
Meaning only exists as experienced by someone particular in a specific situation in time and space. The meaning-making processes in these situations assume a configuration of previous experiences, and probably conventions, languages, agreements on symbols and metaphors, technologies and so on. "The work" doesn't have any meaning outside of these situations (maybe it doesn't even exist, depending on how you define it). The author normally has no control over these situations and thus cannot, practically speaking, determine any meaning. But probably there is neither a "the audience" that can "determine" anything. The audience likely consists of several elements that create meanings in different ways across space and time.
Related issues:
The author/creator/performer had an intention that they themselves get to decide. But this intention is not universally and necessarily the same as "the meaning of the work".Practically speaking, the purpose of the audience is often to understand the intention of the author/creator.
Discussions of authorial intent may be useful and interesting: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorial_intent
I completely agree with you. A beautiful landscape is only beautiful when we perceive that, not because it's inherently beautiful. It's just a collection of mountains trees lakes whatever.
-
If the creator intended a meaning for the piece, the creator.
If the creator made something just for the fun of it and came up with a meaning afterwards, still the creator.
The audience can't change that but what they can do is to not give a fuck about what the creator thinks so they are free give whatever meaning they want. Specially when the authors are no longer around to complain or explain what were their intentions.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_the_Author
https://www.languagehumanities.org/what-is-an-intentional-fallacy.htm
Among other things, when interpreting a work even what the author says their intention was isn't particularly relevant because they could, among many other things, be lying.
-
Original question by @[email protected]
This is just "death of the author"
Ultimate IMO, the audience is free to determine the meaning of something, but they're not free to pronounce that the author intended such a meaning.
