Up On The Roof
quiddity
and
how they are used in the show. It seems to me that the most important are
the
Box, the Roof, Squad Room, and the Car and that they are used for very
distinct kinds of scenes:
The Box - confrontations and rage, with suspects, of course, but also with
partners and other colleagues.
The Roof - (and this is what got me started, when Frank admitted to Gee that
he had lied about why the bosses wanted to see him in "Rockets Red Glare").
I
see this, literally and metaphorically, as the high place. It’s where they
go
for solitude and reflection, where they can lower their guard.
Conversations
on the Roof almost always seem to be difficult but honest. I don’t recall
anyone telling a lie on the Roof. Significantly, I don’t think Meldrick
(who
avoids introspection whenever possible) spent much time there. And of
course,
the Roof is where Bayliss made his confession to Frank.
One of my favorite Roof moments (which doesn’t really fit into my argument,
but what the heck?): "You hug your partner?"
The Squad Room - actually, I’m not sure what function to assign for this
site.
Any suggestions? Maybe it’s just a kind of Limbo or a Green Room, where
the
protaganists fool around until they are called to the stage.
The Car - a place for theorizing, bickering, squabbling, dancing on your
partner’s last nerve, and ultimately bonding.
I left out the Waterfront because it never seemed to have any real dramatic
purpose. The morgue also eludes me, except as a place to cut up bodies and
make dates with female coroners.
Okay, I know I’m trying to tie up a beautifully messy world into an all too
tidy package. Feel free to refute, dispute, and contribute ideas and
favorite
moments.
--
EllenRyan
snarkygirl
>I've been wondering about the various sites that are central to "Homicide"
>and
>how they are used in the show. It seems to me that the most important are
>the
>Box, the Roof, Squad Room, and the Car and that they are used for very
>distinct kinds of scenes:
>
>The Box - confrontations and rage, with suspects, of course, but also with
>partners and other colleagues.
An enclosed space where people get "up close and personal". (Ick - I
hate that phrase!)
>The Roof - (and this is what got me started, when Frank admitted to Gee that
>he had lied about why the bosses wanted to see him in "Rockets Red Glare").
>I
>see this, literally and metaphorically, as the high place. It's where they
>go
>for solitude and reflection, where they can lower their guard.
>Conversations
>on the Roof almost always seem to be difficult but honest. I don't recall
>anyone telling a lie on the Roof. Significantly, I don't think Meldrick
>(who
>avoids introspection whenever possible) spent much time there. And of
>course,
>the Roof is where Bayliss made his confession to Frank.
Is it higher ground because it's above the city and streets where all
the sordid nasty stuff goes on? Closer to God?
>One of my favorite Roof moments (which doesn't really fit into my argument,
>but what the heck?): "You hug your partner?"
>
>The Squad Room - actually, I'm not sure what function to assign for this
>site.
> Any suggestions? Maybe it's just a kind of Limbo or a Green Room, where
>the
>protaganists fool around until they are called to the stage.
The rehearsal room?
>The Car - a place for theorizing, bickering, squabbling, dancing on your
>partner's last nerve, and ultimately bonding.
It's where they travel both physically and metaphorically - in terms
of their personalities. They get to know each other and we get to know
them. Often this other travelling is going nowhere, it's just
rambling, but sometimes the destination is the whole point of the
episode - often more important than the whodunit element of the show.
>I left out the Waterfront because it never seemed to have any real dramatic
>purpose. The morgue also eludes me, except as a place to cut up bodies and
>make dates with female coroners.
I guess the Waterfront is the social end of their lives and it maybe
serves to show that in a job like theirs, even after hours, they're
still police officers and that they socialise with each other because
it may be hard for outsiders to understand or deal with what they do.
snarkygirl
very little thought
Pete B.
news:3B60...@MailAndNews.com...
I've been wondering about the various sites that are central to "Homicide"
and
how they are used in the show. It seems to me that the most important are
the
Box, the Roof, Squad Room, and the Car and that they are used for very
distinct kinds of scenes:
You forgot the cafeteria, where theological issues are explored.
Petey
Dave Worrell
> I've been wondering about the various sites that are central to "Homicide"
> and
> how they are used in the show. It seems to me that the most important are
> the
> Box, the Roof, Squad Room, and the Car and that they are used for very
> distinct kinds of scenes:
>
> The Box - confrontations and rage, with suspects, of course, but also with
> partners and other colleagues.
I've been thinking some about this (since I had a 10k response all
typed up and it got eaten by my computer last night...Oy Vey!!) and
what strikes me about the box (and works well in analyzing other
scenes) is that the box is all about lying and acting...partially by
the criminals trying to avoid getting caught, but mostly by the
detectives themselves. Everything that goes on in that room is
orchestrated. Offering someone coffee, neglecting to offer coffeee,
who's the one offering the coffee...its all planned to achieve some
goal...the criminal is at ease now or trusts one person over another.
Everything that goes on is designed to send a message (either to the
suspect or to whoever is watching in the other room). Even if the
detectives tell the truth (true facts or by revealing a turth about
their character), there's an ulterior motive. Ironically, the object
in this place is to arrive at "the truth", but often times it's a lie
or an act that gets us there. There's a window in the box that the
detective has control over (the shade is on the inside), but there is
a mirror through which others can watch you, but you can't see them.
It's often very important who is watching from the other room.
Sometimes, things said in the box are actually aimed at the unseen
people who are known to be watching (Gee in "Black and Blue" and to
some extent the judge in "The True Test"). The people you can't see
often are judging your "performance"...usually negatively (Megan
re:Frank "He's going to far!" Frank re:Mike "He's going to lose him."
Frank re:Bayliss "That's you, that's not him!"), but sometimes
cheering you on (Gee:"We need this one Frank.") But we see a couple
instances when someone wants to use that room to hear a private
conversation, but is not allowed on ethical grounds.
(I'm breaking these up cause they're getting long. Good topic,
EllenRyan!!)
--Dave
Dave Worrell
>
> The Roof - (and this is what got me started, when Frank admitted to Gee that
> he had lied about why the bosses wanted to see him in "Rockets Red Glare").
> I
> see this, literally and metaphorically, as the high place. It’s where they
> go
> for solitude and reflection, where they can lower their guard.
> Conversations
> on the Roof almost always seem to be difficult but honest. I don’t recall
> anyone telling a lie on the Roof. Significantly, I don’t think Meldrick
> (who
> avoids introspection whenever possible) spent much time there. And of
> course,
> the Roof is where Bayliss made his confession to Frank.
>
> One of my favorite Roof moments (which doesn’t really fit into my argument,
> but what the heck?): "You hug your partner?"
Good point about the roof being the high place and there being more
reflection. And in some ways it's the anti-box. It's spread out and
almost completely open. There is a barrior (the fence), but you can't
hide from watchers. Just the fact that the detectives look down on the
city is a metaphor. Just as the Angels in "Wings of Desire" the
detectives watch over the city and observe and theorize what it is to
be human. There's not as much "friendly" talk up there as there is in
the bars, but there is a fair amount...it's not *just* philosophy. In
fact, this is where Gee brought the detectives to play in the water
and there's a swingset up here. I can't remember how many "outsiders"
were allowed on the roof. Robin Williams is the only one that comes to
mind. There are a handful of meetings that deal more with "business"
than with more general philosophical issues (Pembleton's possible
promotion, Gee announcing the investigation into Beau's murder was
back on). Tellingly, the roof (and not the box) is where Bayliss
confesses his crime to Frank. At the time, Bayliss is sure in his
heart he did the right thing but he is trying to satisfy that fact in
his head (philosophically) and he reveals the crime to Frank where
Frank is honest to his convictions, not where he is willing to allow
lies (Frank let the boy wrongly confess to the murder in "Black and
Blue" and tried to give the girl an out in her confession in "Double
Blind").
--Dave
Dave Worrell
>
> The Squad Room - actually, I’m not sure what function to assign for this
> site.
> Any suggestions? Maybe it’s just a kind of Limbo or a Green Room, where
> the
> protaganists fool around until they are called to the stage.
For one thing, this is the business room. The detectives work here
when they aren't on the street. There usually aren't group scenes on
the roof, but there are here. It seems to me the detectives are more
cynical here than anywhere else (It *is* in the squad room that Beau
makes jokes about the overtime he's going to get). You see more of the
true person here than in the box, but not the deep philosophical side
you see on the roof. There's much talk about the real world, but it
seems to me it's more related to current events than real issues. The
contact with the outside world comes mostly through someone reading
the newspaper or through the telephones. The telephones almost always
bring bad news (Family issues from Crosetti's daughter, Beau's wife,
Kay's sister...a new call about a new death...or the bosses raising
hell). There is a board in full sight that is a constant reminder of
death and your worth as a detective/person (Lot of red up there,
Beau.) But there are also scenes in the break room and Gee's office
that have their own rhythm. (Gee's office being where more official,
and usually confrontational, issues are addressed and the break room
being where the detectives are more personal, more themselves.) It'd
be interesting to go back and watch the squadroom shots from The
Documentary and see what Brodie (and thus, the producers) thought.
--Dave
Dave Worrell
>
> The Car - a place for theorizing, bickering, squabbling, dancing on your
> partner’s last nerve, and ultimately bonding.
Might as well call it the detectives' bedroom. It's where they are
most intimate with their partners.
(And for you Freudians out there, what does *that* say about arguments
about who's going to drive, a detective who doesn't argue about
wanting to drive, or Meldrick not being a good driver? [And *Brodie*'s
presence in the back seat with a *camera* no less!!])
>
> I left out the Waterfront because it never seemed to have any real dramatic
> purpose.
I wouldn't leave out the Waterfront. It's got a hugely important
purpose, it's where the detectives go to relax and be themselves as a
group. It's where they join the world and even sing a tune rather than
watching from on high. (It's not immune from "the world"...a murder
happens in The Waterfront [Heart of a Saturday Night] and Luther comes
there to gloat in Control, only to receive Meldrick's "Don't let them
get the best of you on your own corner" speech.) It's where we see the
detectives at their most human.
--Dave
Dave Worrell
The morgue also eludes me, except as a place to cut up bodies and
> make dates with female coroners.
Well, it's better than the other way around, ya gotta admit. (Last
necrophilia joke from me for a while, I promise!) I think this is
where the victim is most identified as a victim. Not only have they
been killed, but they've been taken away from their homes, stripped of
their possessions and clothes, and lie naked and cut open on a cold
metal slab. In the basement (more or less the basement) people are
lifeless and their bodies are studied as physical pieces for whatever
evidence can be found about their death, on the roof people are living
beings given worth. On the roof, the detectives investigate the
internal workings/abstracts (the mind, the soul, the "heart") for what
can be found out about life. Something Sacred Pt. 2 might be the best
use of the morgue to illustrate this idea.
I'd also add the stairs leading from the street (both the inside set
of stairs and the outside set) and the back ramp (Where Mikey would
have popped Falsone if he hadn't been rudely interrupted.) The
detectives have many confrontations with authority figures in these
locations. "Outsiders" on the stairs (the media, especially) while the
confrontations on the back ramp are usually with the brass
(Barnfather, Gaffney, even Megan).
--Still Me
Dave Worrell
>
> Okay, I know I’m trying to tie up a beautifully messy world into an all too
> tidy package. Feel free to refute, dispute, and contribute ideas and
> favorite
> moments.
Well, it's a good thing that you can't tie them up with a nice little
bow. It means the importance of the locations came more naturally as
the story dictated rather than the story being artificially
manipulated to fit the location.
I also think it's worthwhile to take a look at some of the objects
that recur in the show. The football and the board are two obvious
ones. I've already mentioned how the phones (and the newspapers to a
lesser extent) have a recurring theme. And it surprises me how often
coffee factors into the plots. I mentioned how offering or neglecting
to offer coffee in the Box is many times part of the "act" to get a
confession. It's also the reason Cox claims she hangs around Homicide.
Frank's faulty neurons convince him he's saying "coffee" when he's
actually saying "bagel". Frank spills coffee on Gharty's paper when
Gharty denigrates Bayliss. Beau sends rookie Bayliss off to another
floor when he asks where he can get some coffee. And one of the first
things that Gee is offered when he dies is a cup of coffee (but not
espresso, where do you think that was, heaven?).
--Dave (Not in heaven, but did have some bagel earlier. You
know...brown, liquid...BAY-gel!!))
Diane
wrote:
>EllenRyan consumed two hours of my life and we've never even met:
>
>>
>> Okay, I know I’m trying to tie up a beautifully messy world into an all too
>> tidy package. Feel free to refute, dispute, and contribute ideas and
>> favorite
>> moments.
>
>Well, it's a good thing that you can't tie them up with a nice little
>bow. It means the importance of the locations came more naturally as
>the story dictated rather than the story being artificially
>manipulated to fit the location.
>
>I also think it's worthwhile to take a look at some of the objects
>that recur in the show. The football and the board are two obvious
>ones.
Being included in the football tossing represents acceptance and
comraderie, I would say. Also a good way to let off steam. Or just
men being jerky little boys (remember, Melissa Leo saying she was
never passed the football). Was there ever a scene in the show that
reflected someone being bypassed the football due to conflict? I
think there was, but I can't place it.
And there's Bayliss's Rubik's Cube. That's fairly obvious; he never
did solve the thing.
Diane
snarkygirl
[snip]
>Being included in the football tossing represents acceptance and
>comraderie, I would say. Also a good way to let off steam. Or just
>men being jerky little boys (remember, Melissa Leo saying she was
>never passed the football). Was there ever a scene in the show that
>reflected someone being bypassed the football due to conflict? I
>think there was, but I can't place it.
Season 6 - I can't remember which episode but the ball throwing scene
had Lewis and (I think) Falsone tossing the ball around with Mikey on
the sidelines all eager for a go. He keeps nagging, so one of them
throws the ball to him but then they all turn away when he's about to
throw it back.
snarkygirl
aw poor didumms
quiddity
>"quiddity" <quid...@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message
>news:3B60...@MailAndNews.com...
>"Homicide" and how they are used in the show. It seems to me that the
>most important are the Box, the Roof, Squad Room, and the Car and that they
>are used for very distinct kinds of scenes:
>
>
>Petey
>
>
offerings of unholy coffee are consumed ... I knew I was leaving something
out.
--
EllenRyan, not from places that are wholly land
Pete B.
> offerings of unholy coffee are consumed ... I knew I was leaving
something
> out.
> --
> EllenRyan, not from places that are wholly land
You are forgiven. We'll pull out a chair for you.
Petey - expecting expresso in my cafeteria
quiddity
>EllenRyan consumed two hours of my life and we've never even met:
>
>>
Thanks for playing, Brave Dave, snarkums, et al., for your insights on the
landscape of Homicide. You gave me some good ideas and much to think about.
--
EllenRyan (not to be abed after midnight is to be up betimes)
NDSEB
>The Squad Room - actually, I=92m not sure what function to assign for this
>site.
> Any suggestions? Maybe it=92s just a kind of Limbo
Definitely. Pergatory.
Nina
Lurking Less, But Enjoying it More
uk...@mindspring.com
<snip>
>Was there ever a scene in the show that
>reflected someone being bypassed the football due to conflict? I
>think there was, but I can't place it.
In a season six episode, title unremembered, other squad members
pointedly excluded Mike Kellerman from the football tossing. When
Mikey managed to get the football and prepared to throw it to someone
else, everyone turned away.
--
Shel
La Reina
>Where Godzilla is worshipped, sacred newspaper texts are interpreted, and
>
>offerings of unholy coffee are consumed ...
Don't you mean hot steaming cups of liquid brown bagels?
Reina De Paréntesis
John
the cars, the Waterfront, the morgue, the steps, and coffee:
> EllenRyan consumed two hours of my life and we've never even met:
>
> > Okay, I know I'm trying to tie up a beautifully messy world into an
> > all too tidy package. Feel free to refute, dispute, and contribute
> > ideas and favorite moments.
>
> Well, it's a good thing that you can't tie them up with a nice little
> bow. It means the importance of the locations came more naturally as
> the story dictated rather than the story being artificially
> manipulated to fit the location.
Dave and EllenRyan, allow me to say THANK YOU for the great stuff you've
written here! This was a great read. You don't often think about it --
certain settings, whether by accident or design, seem to be used for
consistent "themes" or purposes throughout the show. I like how Dave
pointed out the various uses of coffee and what they have in common. We
should do this more often, looking for long-running themes in the show.
We could come up with many more examples I'm sure.
Great stuff.
-John-
(who will never drink coffee)
morpheus
:) i agree
morph- inconsequential at best
Dave Worrell
> Dave Worrell wrote lots of stuff on the box, the rooftop, the squadroom,
> the cars, the Waterfront, the morgue, the steps, and coffee:
>
> Dave and EllenRyan, allow me to say THANK YOU for the great stuff you've
> written here! This was a great read. You don't often think about it --
> certain settings, whether by accident or design, seem to be used for
> consistent "themes" or purposes throughout the show. I like how Dave
> pointed out the various uses of coffee and what they have in common. We
> should do this more often, looking for long-running themes in the show.
> We could come up with many more examples I'm sure.
>
> Great stuff.
>
> -John-
> (who will never drink coffee)
Thanks for the kind words. One thing that struck me as I was thinking
about some of these things is the very nature of analyzing a show like
this. I've read a lot of analysis on Twin Peaks and Buffy the Vampire
Slayer, and after a while, I just can't help but wonder if the
producers actually had half the things in mind that people see within
the show. With Lynch, especially, it seems to me he's as likely to
include a shot or image or reference just because he likes it as much
as to make a statement with it...but you'll find people analyzing the
smallest little detail for some planned meaning. I wonder if the real
analysis comes from the "accidental" themes that show up in a body of
work. even more than the "planned" themes. I sincerely doubt that the
Homicide folks intentionally used coffee as a focal point in so many
scenes, but the fact that it shows up so many times interests me
because it seems like it says something more fundamental about every
day things and what they mean to us. On the one hand, it's a
cliche...cops and coffee (and throw in donuts)...on the other hand, it
reveals how such a simple item is intrinsic in so many people's lives.
Rather than saying "Here's a good opportunity for us to use coffee as
a recurring theme again" the way it played out was probably closer to
"What can Frank do to express his anger and frustration toward Gharty?
How about spilling his coffee!" I don't know if I'm making any sense,
but it seems to me there's more truth expressed that way (when the
item ends up being the best thing to use in a particular situation)
than it would have been if the producers were consciously using the
item.
--Dave (Well, it makes sense to me...)
uk...@mindspring.com
wrote:
>Thanks for the kind words. One thing that struck me as I was thinking
>about some of these things is the very nature of analyzing a show like
>this. I've read a lot of analysis on Twin Peaks and Buffy the Vampire
>Slayer, and after a while, I just can't help but wonder if the
>producers actually had half the things in mind that people see within
>the show.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
>I sincerely doubt that the
>Homicide folks intentionally used coffee as a focal point in so many
>scenes, but the fact that it shows up so many times interests me
>because it seems like it says something more fundamental about every
>day things and what they mean to us.
One dreary winter morning my psych instructor looked at her class full
of tense, exhausted nursing students and pointed out that every one of
us had his or her "oral soother" available - cups of coffee, cans of
pop, the odd pint of milk or orange juice. We sipped all class long
not because we were thirsty but because sipping soothed our anxieties
and helped relieve tension.
I believe *she* was a Freudian, Petey.
>On the one hand, it's a
>cliche...cops and coffee (and throw in donuts)...on the other hand, it
>reveals how such a simple item is intrinsic in so many people's lives.
>Rather than saying "Here's a good opportunity for us to use coffee as
>a recurring theme again" the way it played out was probably closer to
>"What can Frank do to express his anger and frustration toward Gharty?
>How about spilling his coffee!" I don't know if I'm making any sense,
>but it seems to me there's more truth expressed that way (when the
>item ends up being the best thing to use in a particular situation)
>than it would have been if the producers were consciously using the
>item.
One may often spot writers revisiting themes and certain images,
sometimes consciously but I'd bet more commonly subconsciously. This
reworking and recycling sometimes yields refreshing, thought-provoking
treatments of subject matter or, at the very least, maintains a
stabilizing continuity. Unfortunately, and most often in the case of
serial novelists, it becomes stale and boring. This is the way some
authors lose me as a reader. Stephen King and Anne Perry spring most
quickly to my mind, although I know there are others and I'm sure
everyone here has his or her own example.
Oddly enough, though, I find Dick Francis as soothing as the tall,
frosty, ice-laden glass of diet coke I'm sipping as I type this post.
--
Shel
Only thousands of messages left to read - well, it feels like
thousands.
Dave Worrell
> On 24 Jul 2001 12:21:44 -0700, dave_w...@yahoo.com (Dave Worrell)
> wrote:
>
I've read a lot of analysis on Twin Peaks and Buffy the Vampire
> >Slayer, and after a while, I just can't help but wonder if the
> >producers actually had half the things in mind that people see within
> >the show.
>
> Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
As "Fozie" would say, "Exactamundo!"
>
> >I sincerely doubt that the
> >Homicide folks intentionally used coffee as a focal point in so many
> >scenes, but the fact that it shows up so many times interests me
> >because it seems like it says something more fundamental about every
> >day things and what they mean to us.
>
> One dreary winter morning my psych instructor looked at her class full
> of tense, exhausted nursing students and pointed out that every one of
> us had his or her "oral soother" available - cups of coffee, cans of
> pop, the odd pint of milk or orange juice. We sipped all class long
> not because we were thirsty but because sipping soothed our anxieties
> and helped relieve tension.
>
> I believe *she* was a Freudian, Petey.
A roomful of nurses slurping "oral soothers"...I think I saw that
movie in college.
>
> >On the one hand, it's a
> >cliche...cops and coffee (and throw in donuts)...on the other hand, it
> >reveals how such a simple item is intrinsic in so many people's lives.
> >Rather than saying "Here's a good opportunity for us to use coffee as
> >a recurring theme again" the way it played out was probably closer to
> >"What can Frank do to express his anger and frustration toward Gharty?
> >How about spilling his coffee!" I don't know if I'm making any sense,
> >but it seems to me there's more truth expressed that way (when the
> >item ends up being the best thing to use in a particular situation)
> >than it would have been if the producers were consciously using the
> >item.
>
> One may often spot writers revisiting themes and certain images,
> sometimes consciously but I'd bet more commonly subconsciously. This
> reworking and recycling sometimes yields refreshing, thought-provoking
> treatments of subject matter or, at the very least, maintains a
> stabilizing continuity.
Yeah! That's exactly what I was trying to get at...that and the fact
that they sometimes unintentionally hit on basic truths that resonates
with a lot people.
Unfortunately, and most often in the case of
> serial novelists, it becomes stale and boring. This is the way some
> authors lose me as a reader. Stephen King and Anne Perry spring most
> quickly to my mind, although I know there are others and I'm sure
> everyone here has his or her own example.
And thus a new thread is born. :-) Any takers?
>
> Oddly enough, though, I find Dick Francis as soothing as the tall,
> frosty, ice-laden glass of diet coke I'm sipping as I type this post.
That must be a very thin wire to navigate...being familiar enough so
you know it's a Francis (or King or Clancy or Barker) book and it
feels like "home", but not so repetitive that it seems like a cookie
cutter/paint by numbers effort. I've lurked in on a lot of
conversations about Clancy and King and Cornwell on other groups
recently and interestingly enough, they've all had someone suggest
that those writers are so big now that they either don't have editors
anymore or that the editors are too cowed or wowed to make any
meaningful changes to the manuscipts other than punctuation (and maybe
not even there, judging by Clancy's latest).
>
> --
> Shel
> Only thousands of messages left to read - well, it feels like
> thousands.
--Dave (eventually just gives up and marks as read)
Martha K.
"Dave Worrell" <dave_w...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1ecf4d.010725...@posting.google.com...
> Shel writted:
<snippage>
>
> > Oddly enough, though, I find Dick Francis as soothing as the tall,
> > frosty, ice-laden glass of diet coke I'm sipping as I type this post.
>
>
> That must be a very thin wire to navigate...being familiar enough so
> you know it's a Francis (or King or Clancy or Barker) book and it
> feels like "home", but not so repetitive that it seems like a cookie
> cutter/paint by numbers effort. I've lurked in on a lot of
> conversations about Clancy and King and Cornwell on other groups
> recently and interestingly enough, they've all had someone suggest
> that those writers are so big now that they either don't have editors
> anymore or that the editors are too cowed or wowed to make any
> meaningful changes to the manuscipts other than punctuation (and maybe
> not even there, judging by Clancy's latest).
That's Elizabeth George, for me. It's really disgraceful to be such a fan.
She's not British, doesn't even live in England, but writes these English
mysteries that I find positively delectable. Yum, yum. The detective and
his friends and colleagues are all depressed and depressing and traumatized.
They clearly need me to straighten them out in some way, or at least to
soothe and comfort them.
>
> > --
> > Shel
> > Only thousands of messages left to read - well, it feels like
> > thousands.
>
> --Dave (eventually just gives up and marks as read)
Me, too, in recent weeks. We never seem to change our subject headings
anymore around here.
Martha K.
Pete B.
> One dreary winter morning my psych instructor looked at her class full
> of tense, exhausted nursing students and pointed out that every one of
> us had his or her "oral soother" available - cups of coffee, cans of
> pop, the odd pint of milk or orange juice. We sipped all class long
> not because we were thirsty but because sipping soothed our anxieties
> and helped relieve tension.
>
> I believe *she* was a Freudian, Petey.
Watching women and what oral fixations they exhibited in my college classes
was a good predictor of what kind of sex I was likely to get if they said
yes when I asked them out. (-:
Petey - thinking about the good ol' days . . .
Keith Gow
waxed lyrical:
>Shel writted:
>
>
>> On 24 Jul 2001 12:21:44 -0700, dave_w...@yahoo.com (Dave Worrell)
>> wrote:
>>
>I've read a lot of analysis on Twin Peaks and Buffy the Vampire
>> >Slayer, and after a while, I just can't help but wonder if the
>> >producers actually had half the things in mind that people see within
>> >the show.
>>
>> Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
>
>As "Fozie" would say, "Exactamundo!"
>
Did Shakespeare think of all the possible interpretations for Hamlet?
No. But are we questioning him? Well?
These analyses of plays, books, TV series are legitimate forms of
review. They are opinions backed up by literary means rather than pop
culture references. And as such should be approached in that way. But
the fact that you can approach these shows from multiple angles
(post-modernism, post-feminism, etc.) speaks to their depths. I
doesn't reflect on whether the writers had all those things in mind,
but does recognise there are multiple levels to these "texts".
There's a reason why you read academic treatises of Twin Peaks and
Buffy and not about NYPD Blue.
-- Keith Gow --
"Love isn't brains, children, it's blood -
blood screaming inside youto work its will."
- Spike, "Buffy: The Vampire Slayer"
Alina Holgate
> On 25 Jul 2001 16:10:02 -0700, dave_w...@yahoo.com (Dave Worrell)
> waxed lyrical:
>
> >Shel writted:
> >> On 24 Jul 2001 12:21:44 -0700, dave_w...@yahoo.com (Dave Worrell)
> >> wrote:
> >I've read a lot of analysis on Twin Peaks and Buffy the Vampire
> >> >Slayer, and after a while, I just can't help but wonder if the
> >> >producers actually had half the things in mind that people see within
> >> >the show.
> >>
> >> Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
> >
> >As "Fozie" would say, "Exactamundo!"
> >
>
> Did Shakespeare think of all the possible interpretations for Hamlet?
> No. But are we questioning him? Well?
> These analyses of plays, books, TV series are legitimate forms of
> review. They are opinions backed up by literary means rather than pop
> culture references. And as such should be approached in that way. But
> the fact that you can approach these shows from multiple angles
> (post-modernism, post-feminism, etc.) speaks to their depths. I
> doesn't reflect on whether the writers had all those things in mind,
> but does recognise there are multiple levels to these "texts".
> There's a reason why you read academic treatises of Twin Peaks and
> Buffy and not about NYPD Blue.
I reckon the fundamental point about this is not so much
whether the producer of the work intended the depths
that are seen but the fact that, whether intended or not,
observers invest what they see in the work with depths
anyway. It's the analysis of the meaning that the work
has for the observer that's of interest to me, regardless
of what the producer intended.
Patrick
wrote:
>Keith Gow wrote:
>
>> Did Shakespeare think of all the possible interpretations for Hamlet?
>> No. But are we questioning him? Well?
>> These analyses of plays, books, TV series are legitimate forms of
>> review. They are opinions backed up by literary means rather than pop
>> culture references. And as such should be approached in that way. But
>> the fact that you can approach these shows from multiple angles
>> (post-modernism, post-feminism, etc.) speaks to their depths. I
>> doesn't reflect on whether the writers had all those things in mind,
>> but does recognise there are multiple levels to these "texts".
>> There's a reason why you read academic treatises of Twin Peaks and
>> Buffy and not about NYPD Blue.
>
>I reckon the fundamental point about this is not so much
>whether the producer of the work intended the depths
>that are seen but the fact that, whether intended or not,
>observers invest what they see in the work with depths
>anyway. It's the analysis of the meaning that the work
>has for the observer that's of interest to me, regardless
>of what the producer intended.
>
Hmmm. So when you're deciding whether someone is a great artist or
not, do you give the artist credit for all the stuff he/she didn't
intend to put there? (Was that your point about Shakespeare, Keith?)
Could you have artists A and B, where if you compared only the stuff
they intended to put into their work, A would be better, but B is
nevertheless regarded as a greater artist because *other* people put
more meaning into B's work than they put into A's? Is there such a
thing as a special talent for creating work that others will supply
unintended meaning for (with the creator nevertheless getting the
artistic credit)? Is it more than simply being so vague that any
meaning to be derived will *have* to be supplied by the observer?
Ponderingly, Patrick
Pete B.
> There's a reason why you read academic treatises of Twin Peaks and
> Buffy and not about NYPD Blue.
Yeah - the reason is people with too much time on their hands that take
themselves way too seriously reading things into bubblegum entertainment
that just aren't there. I'm glad to say I've never read anything I would
consider academically worthy about any of the above three (or almost any TV
show where the writers crank out pablum on a weekly deadline). Surely
people become greatly enamored of such silly stuff but in 100 years no one
will remember a whit about any of the above three but they'll still be
reading Poe and Shakespeare.
Petey
Alina Holgate
Yes, because some works will generate a greater reaction
than others and the artist should be given credit for the fact
that they have produced a work which evokes a greater
reaction, regardless of whether the reaction is the one that
they consciously intended.
> (Was that your point about Shakespeare, Keith?)
> Could you have artists A and B, where if you compared only the stuff
> they intended to put into their work, A would be better, but B is
> nevertheless regarded as a greater artist because *other* people put
> more meaning into B's work than they put into A's?
How else will the art be judged than by the reaction of those
who view it? Mad people produce their version of reality
everyday but, despite their sincere intentions, they are judged
by the consensus of their observers, who usually come to the
conclusion that their intentied message doesn't make any sense.
> Is there such a
> thing as a special talent for creating work that others will supply
> unintended meaning for (with the creator nevertheless getting the
> artistic credit)? Is it more than simply being so vague that any
> meaning to be derived will *have* to be supplied by the observer?
There are some artistic works that nobody invests much meaning
in, despite the efforts of the producers of the work. Sadly I think
the general public is usually right. We live in a society where
Big Brother has more meaning to most people than Hlots. At the
same time the general public can usually recognise a stinker when
they see it.
La Reina
>Patrick wrote:
>
>> Previously on alt.tv.homicide, Alina Holgate <hol...@deakin.edu.au>
>> wrote:
(Keith's quote snipped )
>> Hmmm. So when you're deciding whether someone is a great artist or
>> not, do you give the artist credit for all the stuff he/she didn't
>> intend to put there?
>
>Yes, because some works will generate a greater reaction
>than others and the artist should be given credit for the fact
>that they have produced a work which evokes a greater
>reaction, regardless of whether the reaction is the one that
>they consciously intended.
In college, my senior seminar was a semester spent studying Hemingway and
Robert Frost. I've never cared much for either writer, but I learned a lot. My
professor had spent several years studying with Frost at Breadloaf. They became
lifelong friends, Frost being his mentor as well.
My professor once pointed out the pun in "Mending Walls," to Frost:
"Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offense."
Offense/a fence seems so obvious, but Frost said he'd never intended the pun.
He kind of liked it once it was pointed out, but he never took credit for
planning it.
Frost also was known to tell people looking for deeper meaning in his work that
what he wrote was what he meant. No more, no less. But that hasn't stopped
generations of readers from finding their own meaning in his work.
La Reina,
whose favorite Frost poem is "Acquainted With the Night"
Leslie LeBlanc
> I've read a lot of analysis on Twin Peaks and Buffy the Vampire
> Slayer, and after a while, I just can't help but wonder if the
> producers actually had half the things in mind that people see within
> the show. With Lynch, especially, it seems to me he's as likely to
> include a shot or image or reference just because he likes it as much
> as to make a statement with it...but you'll find people analyzing the
> smallest little detail for some planned meaning. I wonder if the real
> analysis comes from the "accidental" themes that show up in a body of
> work. even more than the "planned" themes.
Having worked behind the scenes in theaters, having written a few scripts
that have been produced in local theater, and having talked with my brother
who did some TV back in the day when he had a contract with Universal
(Quincey, House Calls) and did some off-Broadway (back when that was all
still in Manhattan), I'd say that much of this happens at the last minute.
It's raining, and for continuity reasons, we'd probably better start working
on this scene inside, because it might stop raining later when we need to
fill in some stuff. That actor can't find his suit coat, and he had it on
before . . . OK, everyone take off the suit coats, 'cause, um, it's later at
night and everyone is tired; everyone act tired. I know we thought we'd play
the scene light, but she just had this great angry tone of voice when we
were kidding around, and let's use that instead; what does it do to the rest
of the scene? No, keep the coffee cup, you look like you need it; just drink
the coffee through the scene.
In interviews the actors in H:LotS commented how much they liked how "seat
of the pants" things could get.
I sincerely doubt that the
> Homicide folks intentionally used coffee as a focal point in so many
> scenes, but the fact that it shows up so many times interests me
> because it seems like it says something more fundamental about every
> day things and what they mean to us.
It's an easy way to draw the character quick . . . ALways drinks coffee.
Likes couscous. Eats silly cookies. Bam, it's realer already.
On the one hand, it's a
> cliche...cops and coffee (and throw in donuts)...on the other hand, it
> reveals how such a simple item is intrinsic in so many people's lives.
> Rather than saying "Here's a good opportunity for us to use coffee as
> a recurring theme again" the way it played out was probably closer to
> "What can Frank do to express his anger and frustration toward Gharty?
> How about spilling his coffee!"
I agree 11%. No, seriously, 100%.
I don't know if I'm making any sense,
> but it seems to me there's more truth expressed that way (when the
> item ends up being the best thing to use in a particular situation)
> than it would have been if the producers were consciously using the
> item.
>
> --Dave (Well, it makes sense to me...)
Yeah, keepin' in real. It's one way to do it.
LL (143 messages to go!) What a good thread.
Patrick
wrote:
>Patrick wrote:
>> Hmmm. So when you're deciding whether someone is a great artist or
>> not, do you give the artist credit for all the stuff he/she didn't
>> intend to put there?
>
>Yes, because some works will generate a greater reaction
>than others and the artist should be given credit for the fact
>that they have produced a work which evokes a greater
>reaction, regardless of whether the reaction is the one that
>they consciously intended.
Doesn't that make art essentially a marketing enterprise rather than a
creative one? The only way for a work of art to generate reaction is
for it be not only widely seen but widely paid attention to; only then
can there exist a critical mass of other-infused meaning necessary for
it to be regarded as a great work (or a colossal flop). No matter how
much creativity and meaning has been put into a work, it's not great
art unless it's marketed widely enough. On the other hand, something
that's marketed widely enough doesn't have to have any creativity or
meaning infused into it by its creator at all -- the observers can
supply all the meaning, and creativity is irrelevant.
>
>How else will the art be judged than by the reaction of those
>who view it? Mad people produce their version of reality
>everyday but, despite their sincere intentions, they are judged
>by the consensus of their observers, who usually come to the
>conclusion that their intentied message doesn't make any sense.
But I guess that doesn't stop it from being great art, since the
intended message doesn't matter. If some critic pays enough attention
to it to infuse it with meaning, it's not only art, but the madman who
created the nonsense piece gets credit for the meaning invented by the
critic.
>
>> Is there such a
>> thing as a special talent for creating work that others will supply
>> unintended meaning for (with the creator nevertheless getting the
>> artistic credit)? Is it more than simply being so vague that any
>> meaning to be derived will *have* to be supplied by the observer?
>
>There are some artistic works that nobody invests much meaning
>in, despite the efforts of the producers of the work. Sadly I think
>the general public is usually right. We live in a society where
>Big Brother has more meaning to most people than Hlots. At the
>same time the general public can usually recognise a stinker when
>they see it.
I have loads of faith in the general public, too (my own preference
for H:LotS notwithstanding). But I don't think that gets to my
question. Is there some talent that an artist can have, apart from
the talent associated with making "intended" art, that allows the
artist to maximize the opportunity for others to infuse meaning into
his/her work? And conversely, can an artist lack this talent and
thereby lack (relatively) the opportunity to have his/her work
enhanced by other-infused meaning? It seems to me that it's fair to
credit the artist with the other-infused meaning only if this extra
type of talent can be said to exist.
uk...@mindspring.com
wrote:
>A roomful of nurses slurping "oral soothers"...I think I saw that
>movie in college.
The penis as pacifier. Maybe that's why I...never mind.
>> One may often spot writers revisiting themes and certain images,
>> sometimes consciously but I'd bet more commonly subconsciously. This
>> reworking and recycling sometimes yields refreshing, thought-provoking
>> treatments of subject matter or, at the very least, maintains a
>> stabilizing continuity.
>
>Yeah! That's exactly what I was trying to get at...that and the fact
>that they sometimes unintentionally hit on basic truths that resonates
>with a lot people.
The archetypes of the universal mind! I think I see Joseph Cambell in
the corner waving a book on Jungian theory at us.
>And thus a new thread is born. :-) Any takers?
One can but try.
>I've lurked in on a lot of
>conversations about Clancy and King and Cornwell on other groups
>recently and interestingly enough, they've all had someone suggest
>that those writers are so big now that they either don't have editors
>anymore or that the editors are too cowed or wowed to make any
>meaningful changes to the manuscipts other than punctuation (and maybe
>not even there, judging by Clancy's latest).
Somewhere deep in the bowels of DejaGoogle I'm on record as stating
just that about Stephen King.
--
Shel
Alina Holgate
> Previously on alt.tv.homicide, Alina Holgate <hol...@deakin.edu.au>
> wrote:
> >Patrick wrote:
> >> Hmmm. So when you're deciding whether someone is a great artist or
> >> not, do you give the artist credit for all the stuff he/she didn't
> >> intend to put there?
> >
> >Yes, because some works will generate a greater reaction
> >than others and the artist should be given credit for the fact
> >that they have produced a work which evokes a greater
> >reaction, regardless of whether the reaction is the one that
> >they consciously intended.
>
> Doesn't that make art essentially a marketing enterprise rather than a
> creative one? The only way for a work of art to generate reaction is
> for it be not only widely seen but widely paid attention to; only then
> can there exist a critical mass of other-infused meaning necessary for
> it to be regarded as a great work (or a colossal flop). No matter how
> much creativity and meaning has been put into a work, it's not great
> art unless it's marketed widely enough. On the other hand, something
> that's marketed widely enough doesn't have to have any creativity or
> meaning infused into it by its creator at all -- the observers can
> supply all the meaning, and creativity is irrelevant.
Yes and no. I can see the point that if Hlots hadn't been
stuffed around by programmers it may have been seen by
more people and evoked more reaction, but at the same time
I think that the reaction that's evoked will be inherent to
the piece of art. You can't produce a reaction (or at least a
favourable reaction) simply by marketing if the artwork
doesn't have the quality to sustain it. The movie Pearl Harbour
is a good example of that - the marketers wanted to provoke
the reaction "here, take all my money" but only got the reaction
"blecccch". I'm sure the intention of the producers of Pearl
Harbour was to produce another Titanic but somehow they
couldn't come up with the goods.
> >How else will the art be judged than by the reaction of those
> >who view it? Mad people produce their version of reality
> >everyday but, despite their sincere intentions, they are judged
> >by the consensus of their observers, who usually come to the
> >conclusion that their intentied message doesn't make any sense.
>
> But I guess that doesn't stop it from being great art, since the
> intended message doesn't matter. If some critic pays enough attention
> to it to infuse it with meaning, it's not only art, but the madman who
> created the nonsense piece gets credit for the meaning invented by the
> critic.
Yeah but I think it's a two way street - people don't have a
reaction to nothing, they're having a reaction to something, so
I still think that the quality of the artwork is important. (Just
don't bring up Jackson Pollock o.k., because then I might
have to admit that you were right all along).
> >> Is there such a
> >> thing as a special talent for creating work that others will supply
> >> unintended meaning for (with the creator nevertheless getting the
> >> artistic credit)? Is it more than simply being so vague that any
> >> meaning to be derived will *have* to be supplied by the observer?
> >
> >There are some artistic works that nobody invests much meaning
> >in, despite the efforts of the producers of the work. Sadly I think
> >the general public is usually right. We live in a society where
> >Big Brother has more meaning to most people than Hlots. At the
> >same time the general public can usually recognise a stinker when
> >they see it.
>
> I have loads of faith in the general public, too (my own preference
> for H:LotS notwithstanding). But I don't think that gets to my
> question. Is there some talent that an artist can have, apart from
> the talent associated with making "intended" art, that allows the
> artist to maximize the opportunity for others to infuse meaning into
> his/her work? And conversely, can an artist lack this talent and
> thereby lack (relatively) the opportunity to have his/her work
> enhanced by other-infused meaning? It seems to me that it's fair to
> credit the artist with the other-infused meaning only if this extra
> type of talent can be said to exist.
I reckon I'd argue that there is a talent for producing "richer"
work which is going to provoke more complex and various
reactions. Compare the meaning that can be infused into
Hlots with the meaning that can be infused into Baywatch.
Think of the diversity of opinion and preference and
observation shown in this newsgroup discussing Hlots. I
bet all the threads in the Baywatch newsgroup are headed
"great tits".
Leslie LeBlanc
"Patrick" (Gosh, I love those default quotation marks; reminds me of one of
my favorite local signs: "Ice". The other is "Rudy's Radiator and Cold
Beer". But I digress.> wrote some stuff, in response to Stargate and some
other people's stuff, and now I can't figure out who said what anymore BUT:
> >> Hmmm. So when you're deciding whether someone is a great artist or
> >> not, do you give the artist credit for all the stuff he/she didn't
> >> intend to put there?
Unless one is compiling an Art History 101 text or is grasping wildly for
cocktail conversation, i.e., in *real* real life, do you think there is any
utility in deciding whether someone is a "great artist" or not? Do you think
it makes a difference to the artist? To receive recognition and praise (and
monies) is better than to not receive them, but, at the end of the day, do
you think that these things are motivators for the "great artist"? I would
submit that most artists work from a compulsion, not for a carrot at the end
of a stick. I think most artists work because they have to, from an inner
need, and if someone likes what they do, and they can make a living, that's
a plus. I think our Trixie is an artist, and while lately she's started to
rake in the big bucks -- :) -- and she does receive recognition in her
community, I don't think that she quilts because she hopes to be in Teenage
People (TM) magazine. She quilts because it gives her joy. She quilts
because she can't not quilt. Which leads me to an unpleasant question:
H:LotS is definitely great TV. Is it art? IMNSHO, it reaches the level of
art at various times <ouch! ouch! hey! ow!>, but, even in season 1, it's not
up there with Fra Lippo Lippi. Or even Chagall. And it's not that I'm a
collosal snob who won't allow video to be viewed as "art" -- there's The
Singing Detective, for example. But it didn't have the challenges posed by
being a series, and it damn sure wasn't made under the aegis of NBC.
> >Yes, because some works will generate a greater reaction
> >than others and the artist should be given credit for the fact
> >that they have produced a work which evokes a greater
> >reaction, regardless of whether the reaction is the one that
> >they consciously intended.
One requirement we might have for art is that it is compelling. Since we're
not all units in a pod, however, we are compelled by different things. I
think it's a fallacy to require that art have a "consistent message" (or
even have a message at all: that's confusing art with propaganda). I think
it's a fallacy to expect anything of art at all. I once made my mom a large
clay pot, and she asked, "But what is it?" and I said, "It's a clay pot." In
some ways, this is a stupid example, because by no stretch of the
imagination was that pot a work of art, but in another way it's a
serviceable example: the pot is what it is, like PopEye ("I yam what I
yam"). If it's art, it doesn't have to be useful. It might be attractive and
something one would want on the wall, be it doesn't have to be. We might
want art to create a reaction, but it's unrealistic to expect that reaction
to be the same for everyone, including the artist. At some point, the art
takes the artist by the throat, and she or he doesn't have a lot of choices.
What is made comes from the artist, but is not solely her or his. To say the
art is what the artist intended is also a fallacy, I think. (Boy, it's
getting kind of Romantic in here, isn't it?)
> Doesn't that make art essentially a marketing enterprise rather than a
> creative one? The only way for a work of art to generate reaction is
> for it be not only widely seen but widely paid attention to; only then
> can there exist a critical mass of other-infused meaning necessary for
> it to be regarded as a great work (or a colossal flop). No matter how
> much creativity and meaning has been put into a work, it's not great
> art unless it's marketed widely enough.
Was this last sentence meant sarcastically? I hope so. The old koan "If a
tree falls in a forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound?" (or, as
Rick puts it, "If a man says someting in a forest and no woman hears him, is
he still wrong?") is meant to be a mindbender, but no one takes it
seriously, I don't think. I mean, to be stupid: OK, no one is in the forest,
a tree falls, but there's a tape running when it falls -- there's a sound
made because it can be played back. A work of art is a work of art even if
no one ever sees it. There is a vocal group called Anonymous 4 that sings
medieval music. It took its name from the works of one medieval, anonymous
monastic song writer -- it was considered bad form (vanity) to put your name
on your work. These songs have been sitting in a monastery, unsung, for 700
years. It's unclear if they were ever performed. It's only lately, with
modern musical scholarship, that some academics have begun to puzzle out the
form of musical notation the medieval song writers used. Are these works of
art? Were they works of art before they were sung and heard?
On the other hand, something
> that's marketed widely enough doesn't have to have any creativity or
> meaning infused into it by its creator at all -- the observers can
> supply all the meaning, and creativity is irrelevant.
This is meant as cynicism, right? I mean, people gotta eat, but when you're
talking about Art, popularity means zip. What you do to eat has nothing to
do with making art. I don't mean art can't be popular; I mean popularity is
not criteria in aesthetic analysis. (Can't find that character for "AE";
crap.)
> >How else will the art be judged than by the reaction of those
> >who view it?
Art is art. Judgement changes; art doesn't.
Mad people produce their version of reality
> >everyday but, despite their sincere intentions, they are judged
> >by the consensus of their observers, who usually come to the
> >conclusion that their intentied message doesn't make any sense.
Some mad people have made stupendous art. Sometimes mad people seem to have
an edge.
> But I guess that doesn't stop it from being great art, since the
> intended message doesn't matter.
I have already argued that "message" and "intent" are not important in the
discussion. (And if you fall for that line, I have some property on
Livington Street in Brooklyn that I want to show you. . . .)
If some critic pays enough attention
> to it to infuse it with meaning, it's not only art, but the madman who
> created the nonsense piece gets credit for the meaning invented by the
> critic.
This is just wrong-headed. Critics don't infuse art with meaning. The very
thought makes my head spin. If I take this at face value, though, it still
doesn't work; the discussion is too cerebral at this point. Art is specific;
it is in this place, in this form, at this time; even if it is performance,
it is the intent of the author expressed by the players in this place, in
this form, at this time. In this conversation, we how have some work of are
by some madman who created nonsense, etc. etc. Which madman, what nonsense,
which meaning? The whole thing is starting to sound like some B&W 50s movie
set in France. I posit that it is a cliche for madmen to make art. There are
idiot savants; there are artists who are deeply emotionally disturbed. These
are not the norms. A this point in the discussion, it's not useful to bring
up bizarre cases to prove points. (Ha! Who says I can't drink coffee AND
take antihistamines at the SAME TIME????!??!?!?) Sorey.
> >> Is there such a
> >> thing as a special talent for creating work that others will supply
> >> unintended meaning for (with the creator nevertheless getting the
> >> artistic credit)? Is it more than simply being so vague that any
> >> meaning to be derived will *have* to be supplied by the observer?
Oh c'mon; this is an argument offered in bad faith. Do you want to talk
about any particular work? We might be able to really discuss something
real. This is too rhetorical to merit response. OK, but for the hell of it:
each work compells each viewer/participant differently. Your or my reaction
to a work is not "wrong." We could educate ourselves; we could attempt to
widen our frames of reference; we could try to inure ourselves to images
such as those presented by Mapelthorpe (sp?) so that we aren't offended or
distressed. All meaning is supplied by the observer. And no one's "meaning"
is more important than yours, or mine -- more educated, more astute, more
informed, maybe, but not more real or true. We might be moved to want to
learn what the artist intended, but, if the artist fails in conveying a
message, it doesn't lessen the value of the art. But, then again, art is not
about "meaning."
> >There are some artistic works that nobody invests much meaning
> >in, despite the efforts of the producers of the work. Sadly I think
> >the general public is usually right. We live in a society where
> >Big Brother has more meaning to most people than Hlots. At the
> >same time the general public can usually recognise a stinker when
> >they see it.
The general public, society, whatever (feeling like I might go into morph
mode now, uh oh -- will try to fight it off); these are not important in
discussing art.
> I have loads of faith in the general public, too (my own preference
> for H:LotS notwithstanding).
HA! Says I. And a rowley, powley, gammon, and spinach.
But I don't think that gets to my
> question. Is there some talent that an artist can have, apart from
> the talent associated with making "intended" art, that allows the
> artist to maximize the opportunity for others to infuse meaning into
> his/her work?
Good mental health. Good hygiene. Good business sense. A relative she or he
can trust who's good with money.
And conversely, can an artist lack this talent and
> thereby lack (relatively) the opportunity to have his/her work
> enhanced by other-infused meaning? It seems to me that it's fair to
> credit the artist with the other-infused meaning only if this extra
> type of talent can be said to exist.
Oy. Sorry to be a pain in the ass so early in the morning. Cape Cod, here I
come!!
L
Pete B.
> And it's not that I'm a
> collosal snob who won't allow video to be viewed as "art"
Hey! I resemble that remark! (Although I consider myself to be more
colloidal than "collosal.")
Pete - loves the Colossal Beast movies but thinks they, like most weekly TV
scripts would very rarely rise high enough to be considered art.
La Binsk
that I'm going to ignore so that I can concentrate on the following:
>
> There is a vocal group called Anonymous 4 that sings
> medieval music. It took its name from the works of one medieval, anonymous
> monastic song writer -- it was considered bad form (vanity) to put your name
> on your work.
>
Yea! I've found someone else who is a fan of these gals!
La Binsk
Loves her cassette of "A Star in the East" (containing medieval
Hungarian Christmas music).
Dave Worrell
> Previously on alt.tv.homicide, Alina Holgate <hol...@deakin.edu.au>
> wrote:
>
> >Patrick wrote:
>
> >> Hmmm. So when you're deciding whether someone is a great artist or
> >> not, do you give the artist credit for all the stuff he/she didn't
> >> intend to put there?
> >
> >Yes, because some works will generate a greater reaction
> >than others and the artist should be given credit for the fact
> >that they have produced a work which evokes a greater
> >reaction, regardless of whether the reaction is the one that
> >they consciously intended.
>
> Doesn't that make art essentially a marketing enterprise rather than a
> creative one? The only way for a work of art to generate reaction is
> for it be not only widely seen but widely paid attention to; only then
> can there exist a critical mass of other-infused meaning necessary for
> it to be regarded as a great work (or a colossal flop). No matter how
> much creativity and meaning has been put into a work, it's not great
> art unless it's marketed widely enough. On the other hand, something
> that's marketed widely enough doesn't have to have any creativity or
> meaning infused into it by its creator at all -- the observers can
> supply all the meaning, and creativity is irrelevant.
>
This discussion reminds me of the scene in "Back to School" (speaking
of great art *g*)...where Rodney Dangerfield's millionaire character
hires Kurt Vonnegut to write a paper on one of his (Vonnegut's) works.
The professor gives Dangerfield an "F" and comments "I don't know who
wrote this paper, but he doesn't know Vonnegut."
--Dave (I get no respect...no respect.)
Patrick
wrote:
>The whole thing is starting to sound like some B&W 50s movie
>set in France.
I might put up with being in B&W for a week or so if I could spend it
in Parisian cafes in the 50s talking philosophy of art with you and
Alina. But I do see your point -- perhaps we should continue this
offline.
Thickly, Patrick
and bless you for not putting an apostrophe in 50s
Patrick
<aol> Me three! </aol>
In fact I've got "An English Ladymass" and "11,000 Virgins" on my hard
drive at work. Both brilliant.
--Patrick
would love to be able to sing that stuff
John
Is '50s acceptable? Does it pass the Patrick test?
(Note: if you squint your eyes and look *very* closely, you'll observe
that I used an apostrophe, not a single quote...)
-John-
(who hopes Rich Reed will help but worries about the lack of offense)
Patrick
<mkell...@visispamkills.commodity> wrote:
>Patrick wrote:
>
>> and bless you for not putting an apostrophe in 50s
>
>Is '50s acceptable? Does it pass the Patrick test?
>
>(Note: if you squint your eyes and look *very* closely, you'll observe
>that I used an apostrophe, not a single quote...)
If anything, it's even more correct than 50s. It passes with flying
Twins colors (which are what, exactly?).
--Patrick
who doesn't know how to make a real apostrophe on Usenet
John
> Previously on alt.tv.homicide, John wrote:
>
> > Patrick wrote:
> >
> > > and bless you for not putting an apostrophe in 50s
> >
> > Is '50s acceptable? Does it pass the Patrick test?
> >
> > (Note: if you squint your eyes and look *very* closely, you'll
> > observe that I used an apostrophe, not a single quote...)
>
> If anything, it's even more correct than 50s. It passes with flying
> Twins colors (which are what, exactly?).
Black and blue, I think, judging from their recent play. (Hey, check it
out -- on topic!)
> --Patrick
> who doesn't know how to make a real apostrophe on Usenet
Kinda like em dashes, hmmm?
-John-
(who's still stunned by the Korey Stringer news)
uk...@mindspring.com
(Patrick) wrote:
><aol> Me three! </aol>
>
>In fact I've got "An English Ladymass" and "11,000 Virgins" on my hard
>drive at work. Both brilliant.
>
>--Patrick
>would love to be able to sing that stuff
Ye gods! Me four, almost. I don't have Anonymous Four, but I have
some other chant.
I find chant soothing.
I keep telling my family that there are more like me out there
somewhere! They always doubt me.
--
Shel
Kayleigh19
Well, I don't have any of these (note to self: make list!), but I do have lots
of chant/instrumental CDs that we used for teaching period dances in the SCA.
Most relaxing to listen to.
Now, if I can only get my hands on a copy of "Hot Sex Madrigal in the Middle of
my Tights", I'll be cooking with gas.
Kayleigh
Alina Holgate
> Now, if I can only get my hands on a copy of "Hot Sex Madrigal in the Middle of
> my Tights", I'll be cooking with gas.
I get that. We're fine chums, hey Bob.
Unhurried1
Okay. Has anyone besides me listened to native North American flute
while driving through the mountains? Positively eerie sometimes.
--
Unhurried1
uk...@mindspring.com
>Okay. Has anyone besides me listened to native North American flute
>while driving through the mountains? Positively eerie sometimes.
No mountains here in the flat hinterlands, I'm afraid, but I can
attest to the otherworldly qualities of Carlos Nakai's "Island of
Bows" on a dark and stormy night. On "Island of Bows" Nakai, an
excellent performer of Native American flute music, recorded with a
group of Japanese musicians playing traditional Japanese instruments.
I highly recommend it to anyone who likes this sort of thing.
I developed a fondness for the Japanese musical aesthetic during my
three years in Hawaii. A couple of old Japanese guys used to play
these flute sorta thingies at one of the parks. It's beautiful,
soothing music.
--
Shel
Kayleigh19
:) Just pop yer...uh...*manservant* on the table, and we'll take a look at it
then.
Kayleigh
*not* a crone from Putney
La Binsk
>
> Okay. Has anyone besides me listened to native North American flute
> while driving through the mountains? Positively eerie sometimes.
>
Unfortunately, I don't have any Native North American flute music.
It's all the more regrettable, I suppose, as, once upon a time, flute
music was a common means by which Osage males used to woo Osage
females. I ought to have something with which to commemorate that, I
think.
I do, however, have some cassettes containing Osage tribal dance songs
(natch), Native American Church songs, and stomp dance songs from the
Muscogees (Creeks) and Seminoles. Not particularly eerie, I suppose
(at least, not to my ears), but downright homey. :)
I hear good things of Nakai, who is one of the better-known Native
American flutists. Maybe I'll try something of his. BTW, who is the
eerie flutist that you mentioned?
La Binsk
Unhurried1
> Unhur...@webtv.net (Unhurried1) wrote in message news:<bd038734.01080...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > Okay. Has anyone besides me listened to native North American flute
> > while driving through the mountains? Positively eerie sometimes.
> >
> American flutists. Maybe I'll try something of his. BTW, who is the
> eerie flutist that you mentioned?
"A Gathering of Shamen" (Native Flute Ensemble). The music itself is
not eerie, but in various settings it is evocative in different ways.
Info below is from:
http://www.sacredtrust.org/acatalog/Shamanism_Online_Artists_K_to_O_29.html
"Songs are built around several sacred sites in the western
hemisphere. The Black Hills of South Dakota where the spirits are
thought to ride the winds are honoured in 'Summoning Winds', the
opening cut. The community of Santiago in Guatemala is the home of the
Mayan Indians who believe that man must renew his relationship with
the earth just as the earth can renew itself. The vanished Anasazi
Indians are the theme for 'Site of Great Mystery', a subtle piece that
recognises the mystery around this lost civilisation. A rare ocean
drum that recreates the sound of waves against the shores is played
for the closing piece."
Brief samples, which seem inadequate somehow, can be heard at:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00000361X/qid%3D997165063/103-0961733-5797466
--
Unhurried1
uk...@mindspring.com
>Kayleigh
>*not* a crone from Putney
There are two things you must know about the wise woman.
One, she is wise.
Two...
--
Shel
Alina Holgate
And for the condition of not being a crone from Putney I would
prescribe a course of....................
Kayleigh19
Let me guess......leeches?
Kayleigh
"Sir Walter "Oooh, I've got a bloody big ship" Raleigh"
RESchwalb
<< "Patrick" . . . wrote some stuff, in response to Stargate and some
other people's stuff, and now I can't figure out who said what anymore BUT:
Unless one is compiling an Art History 101 text or is grasping wildly for
cocktail conversation, i.e., in *real* real life, do you think there is any
utility in deciding whether someone is a "great artist" or not? Do you think
it makes a difference to the artist? To receive recognition and praise (and
monies) is better than to not receive them, but, at the end of the day, do
you think that these things are motivators for the "great artist"? I would
submit that most artists work from a compulsion, not for a carrot at the end
of a stick. I think most artists work because they have to, from an inner
need, and if someone likes what they do, and they can make a living, that's
a plus. I think our Trixie is an artist, and while lately she's started to
rake in the big bucks -- :) -- and she does receive recognition in her
community, I don't think that she quilts because she hopes to be in Teenage
People (TM) magazine. She quilts because it gives her joy. She quilts
because she can't not quilt. >>
Yeesh, I go away a couple of times this summer, get a bit behind on reading
this newsgroup, and find that my name was taken in vain in my absence--and how
exactly do you know that I *don't* want to be in Teenage People™ magazine,
missy?!
Still, you've gotten my motivations for making quilts pretty much spot on, as
Alina or snarks might say. Of course, the praise and affirmation and money is
great (hey: the check cleared!), but I'd make what I make (i.e.,
non-traditional quilts intended for the wall rather than the bed, which
incorporate a lot of surface design, particularly writing), regardless.
Laboring in a "decorative art" removes me to a great extent from the mainstream
art world, but I suspect--I *hope*--that the need to create is the great
motivator, regardless of the medium. Although of course there seems (seem?) to
be an awful lot of people around these days without much visible talent who
want to live the "art life."
As to whether or not an artist should get "credit" for the meanings viewers
and/or critics read into the work, all I can do is offer my own example, of
finishing a piece, only to take a good hard look at it and realize that there's
something there that I'd never thought about, consciously, while my nose was to
the sewing machine. The quilt hanging right above my computer is based on the
patterns of two types of circuit boards. It was a total bitch and a half to
make; it was all I could do to hang in there and sew the thing together. No
time for deeper thoughts! It took five months to make, so for five months I
stared at this thing allatime, but not until another quiltmaker looked at it,
and got a kind of smirky grin on her face, did I realize how very *sexual* the
design was, what with the protruding shapes penetrating and being embraced by
other shapes. LOLOL So, I tend to assume--to extrapolate!--that the same kind
of thing happens to lots of other artists, too: all these damned pesky
thoughts/images *slither* in from the subconscious mind, while our attention is
directed elsewhere.
<< Which leads me to an unpleasant question:
H:LotS is definitely great TV. Is it art? IMNSHO, it reaches the level of
art at various times <ouch! ouch! hey! ow!>, but, even in season 1, it's not
up there with Fra Lippo Lippi. Or even Chagall. And it's not that I'm a
collosal snob who won't allow video to be viewed as "art" -- there's The
Singing Detective, for example. But it didn't have the challenges posed by
being a series, and it damn sure wasn't made under the aegis of NBC. >>
Yeah, but: historically, much art was overseen by committees representing
Church or State; NBC isn't the first and won't be the last foolish and
aesthetically insensitive entity with its own agenda to commission "artwork."
But, it's too hard to compare such different media! TV unfolds in the
additional dimension of time. One wonders what kinds of videos the Dead
(mostly) White (mostly) Guys would've made, if they could've.
> >Yes, because some works will generate a greater reaction
> >than others and the artist should be given credit for the fact
> >that they have produced a work which evokes a greater
> >reaction, regardless of whether the reaction is the one that
> >they consciously intended.
Chris Olfili's work generated an *enormous* reaction--he of the Virgin Mary
w/elephant dung at the "Sensation" show--but only the passage of time will tell
if his art, or anyone else's, is really any good.
<< One requirement we might have for art is that it is compelling. Since we're
not all units in a pod, however, we are compelled by different things. I
think it's a fallacy to require that art have a "consistent message" (or
even have a message at all: that's confusing art with propaganda). I think
it's a fallacy to expect anything of art at all. I once made my mom a large
clay pot, and she asked, "But what is it?" and I said, "It's a clay pot." >>
That's deep. That's very deep. It's also very Zen. :)
Patricia Malarcher, artist and editor of Surface Design Journal, has written
that "Craft derives much of its meaning from process," which is completely
true--and why a lot of artworld critics Don't Get Craft, since they've never
worked with traditional craft materials in a traditional way. Which seems to
support Kasdan's belief that no one who hasn't Done It--filmmaking, in his
case--can ever really Get It. But, that's another thread. :)
<< At some point, the art
takes the artist by the throat, and she or he doesn't have a lot of choices.
What is made comes from the artist, but is not solely her or his. To say the
art is what the artist intended is also a fallacy, I think. (Boy, it's
getting kind of Romantic in here, isn't it?) >>
Heh.
> >How else will the art be judged than by the reaction of those
> >who view it?
<< Art is art. Judgement changes; art doesn't. >>
Hard to imagine now, but Vermeer was considered no big deal for several hundred
years after his death. Nowadays, all those lovely Impressionist paintings
cause record crowds to tremble with pleasure, but back when, they were highly
transgressive and often reviled.
There may well be, say, brilliant landscapists painting today who do not get
the critical and popular attention and props they deserve because landscape
painting is out of fashion. So it ever goes!
<< Some mad people have made stupendous art. Sometimes mad people seem to have
an edge. >>
> If some critic pays enough attention
> to it to infuse it with meaning, it's not only art, but the madman who
> created the nonsense piece gets credit for the meaning invented by the
> critic.
The mentally ill have enough problems. Save your anger for the self-promoting
poseurs.
<snipsnipsnip>
> But I don't think that gets to my
> question. Is there some talent that an artist can have, apart from
> the talent associated with making "intended" art, that allows the
> artist to maximize the opportunity for others to infuse meaning into
> his/her work?
<< Good mental health. Good hygiene. Good business sense. A relative she or he
can trust who's good with money. >>
I know you were being semi-snarky, but, hoo-boy, is this ever true!
Robin, RC Trixie