I just got my feedback from the intro comp...
Fred M. Sloniker
Anyway, I'd like to offer my own commentary on the commentary, but
recognize it's probably too soon to do so. When will it be safe for
me to open my yap?
J.D. Berry
Never. Think about it.
You submitted an entry to be critiqued by a panel. In effect you authorized
their response to "what do you guys think about this?" If each panelist
says,
"I don't like it", what more can you add? "Oh, yes, you do!"?
Soon the works will be open to the public. Two things can happen. 1) The
public loves your work, the panelists look like fools, and you are at least
partially vindicated. 2) The public also hates your work. D'oh.
But nothing you, the author, can add will help your cause. You can hurt it,
though.
Whatever you were going for just didn't resonate with the panel. Shake off
the bad feelings. Learn from the experience. If it means anything, I
admire
anyone with the courage to enter any type of IF comp. In exchange for your
risk, you grow.
I'll stop with the Desiderata. :-)
Hang tough,
Jim
Kathleen M. Fischer
>their response to "what do you guys think about this?" If each panelist
>says,
>"I don't like it", what more can you add? "Oh, yes, you do!"?
Well, no... that approach would probably not go over well.
>Soon the works will be open to the public. Two things can happen. 1) The
>public loves your work, the panelists look like fools, and you are at least
>partially vindicated. 2) The public also hates your work. D'oh.
>
>But nothing you, the author, can add will help your cause. You can hurt it,
>though.
I would think that a non-defensive post stating what you were trying to
accomplish would certainly be OK, and might actually provoke some meaningful
dialogue as to what you could have done to better accomplish your goal
(especially if you feel the reviewers "missed the point", and that the game
would actually have been better recieved if they had "got the point"). The
key
being the "non-defensive" part. Saying "The judges were idiots" is probably
a
Bad Idea.
I know in several reviews I've written, I've later read OTHER reviews that
showed I had missed something (communicating with the fish in Lagoon comes
to
mind. I tried, I really did. It just didn't work for me. <sigh>). If you
honestly feel that the reviewers are "wrong" (a dangerous word, mind you,
and
I personally wouldn't use it), then a gentle post saying something like:
"Well, you actually CAN communicate with the fish, if you do X, Y, Z. Any
suggestions as to how I could have made that more clear?"
Noting that I avoided calling the reviewer an idiot for the oversight,
though
it is plainly obvious that they must have been. :)
>Whatever you were going for just didn't resonate with the panel. Shake off
>the bad feelings. Learn from the experience.
... or, failing that, write a game that includes reviews and enter it in the
next competition, forcing reviewers to review it (though I'd avoid calling
it
Ribbons, as that name is already taken by an outstanding piece entered in
this
years Art Show.) :) :) :)
Kathleen (wondering how many "Gate Arm" Reviews she's written in the past?)
-- Masquerade (Comp2000, nominated for Best Story (XYZZY's))
-- ftp://ftp.gmd.de/if-archive/games/zcode/Mask.z5
-- The Cove - Best of Landscape, Interactive Fiction Art Show 2000
-- ftp://ftp.gmd.de/if-archive/games/zcode/Cove.z5
-- Excuse me while I dance a little jig of despair
Aris Katsaris
Fred M. Sloniker <sf...@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:tgerht4vsvsd5g99e...@4ax.com...
My attitude is that one's allowed to offer private commentary on private
commentary, and public commentary on public commentary.
The commentary to which you object hasn't yet been made public - neither
has your entry. Therefore it's probably a rather bad idea to offer
commentary
on it *now*.
Afterwards, you can of course try and explain yourself and your intentions
with what you tried to do with your entry - just as Kathleen suggested....
It's
probably best if you wait for atleast a couple days after the comp opens
to the public though...
Aris Katsaris
Fred M. Sloniker
<jdb...@MailAndNews.com> wrote:
>Never.
(raises eyebrow) How rude.
>You submitted an entry to be critiqued by a panel. In effect you
>authorized their response to "what do you guys think about this?" If
>each panelist says, "I don't like it", what more can you add? "Oh,
>yes, you do!"?
Actually, I was thinking along the lines of 'well, I agree with these
points; these points show my intent was misunderstood, but that's
hardly the judges' fault; I note the judges disagreed on this point,
but were unanimous on this point'; and so on. It *would* be pretty
stupid of me to put a creative work up for critique and then not only
ignore the critique but suggest the critics are wrong... which leaves
me feeling a bit hurt that you'd think I would.
>Soon the works will be open to the public. Two things can happen.
>1) The public loves your work, the panelists look like fools, and you
>are at least partially vindicated. 2) The public also hates your
>work. D'oh.
Or they could go 'eh', which was pretty much the judges' reaction.
n_n;
>But nothing you, the author, can add will help your cause. You can
>hurt it, though.
You seem to be under the impression that my 'cause' is to convince
people to love my prologue. It isn't. In fact, I think the judges
raised valid criticisms, painful as they may have been (my baby!), and
would like to address them. I'm just waiting until the public sees
them (which is when? No one answered my original question) so things
will make sense.
Granted, I risk putting my foot in my mouth, but that's a risk I take
every time I open it. The alternative would be to say nothing at
all... and if I didn't think I had *anything* worth saying, well, I
wouldn't have entered the PrologueComp in the first place, would I?
Nick Montfort
is welcome to do so, publicly or privately. If the comments came back
to you without judges' names attached, as I suspect they may have,
that should be remedied soon after the results of the competition are
announced.
I wrote my comments in part to explain why I ranked a prologue the way
I did, but mainly to provide the author with the best advice I could
on how to improve his or her prologue. I particularly welcome your
reply if you do actually wish to improve your prologue, or use your
prologue as an occasion to discuss writing in IF, and if you further
think, based on the comments I provided, that discussion with me may
help.
-Nick Montfort <www.nickm.com>
Sasha
I'm right with you on this one, pal (some consolation). A few weeks
ago I submitted an entry to Emily Short's Walkthrough Comp. It took a
month to write and cost me a bunch of sleepless nights, loads of
tangerines and a few points off my graduation exams, too. And guess
what? I scored fifth. Out of six entries. The review of my work
comprised, let's see... five lines of text. Four, if you throw out
word wraps. And when I looked at the entries that placed higher than
mine did, well...
But here are the words of precious consolation, my friend: it does not
make a halfpenny of difference. Or at least, it shouldn't. What I
maintain (I actually took this up with ES on IF MUD shortly before
submitting my entry to her comp... should have known better, I guess)
is that the readers can never grasp the entire complexity of the
author's work, since the work in its integrity exists only in the
author's mind. Therefore (and for other reasons) the creative work
done by the reader is secondary; and anyway, one should only write for
his own aesthetic pleasure. For elaboration, see my Author/Reader
essays on http://truespirit.virtualave.net (Go to "On Literature",
then the essays).
Here is the bottom line: did you have fun doing it? Do you think you
did a good job? Well then, forget about everything else. It ain't
worth it.
Cheers, Sasha
http://truespirit.virtualave.net
Lucian P. Smith
: Fred M. Sloniker <sf...@qwest.net> wrote in message news:<tgerht4vsvsd5g99e...@4ax.com>...
:> (wince) Excuse me while I staunch the bleeding.
:>
:> Anyway, I'd like to offer my own commentary on the commentary, but
:> recognize it's probably too soon to do so. When will it be safe for
:> me to open my yap?
: I'm right with you on this one, pal (some consolation). A few weeks
: ago I submitted an entry to Emily Short's Walkthrough Comp. It took a
: month to write and cost me a bunch of sleepless nights, loads of
: tangerines and a few points off my graduation exams, too. And guess
: what? I scored fifth. Out of six entries.
Actually, the games were listed as 'first place', then 'everyone else'.
This would have been more clear if the other games were listed in
alphabetical order, but hey. They really are random.
Also, as Emily says at the top, "The results are, of course, incredibly
subjective." The trick in reading reviews of your own work is *always*
figuring out the line between the reader not getting it because of you,
and the reader not getting it because of them.
Should you talk about it in public? The danger here is that you'll be
seen as a whiner--*even when people agree with you*. It's possible to
not do this (and others have posted good ideas in this regard), but in
general, it's cleverer to let someone else argue for you than to argue
yourself. Note: This does not mean you should post under a pseudonym
;-)
-Lucian
Adam Cadre
> since the work in its integrity exists only in the author's mind.
Well, no. The reason that it's called a "work" is that it is the product
of, well, work -- ie, what is actually produced. This may well fall well
short of the artistic triumph the author had in mind, but that imaginary
artistic triumph is not a work -- it's perhaps a handful of highlights of
a work, with all the nuts and bolts connecting those highlights glossed
over with an "enh, I'm sure all that stuff'll be great when I actually get
to hammering it all out." If dreams and vague plans counted as work, then
the most highly acclaimed pieces of IF today would be Hamsterworld and
Mirrors [tentative title], followed closely by Pantheon and Psychotica
part 18.
-----
Adam Cadre, Brooklyn, NY
web site: http://adamcadre.ac
novel: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060195584/adamcadreac
Sean T Barrett
>But here are the words of precious consolation, my friend: it does not
>make a halfpenny of difference. Or at least, it shouldn't. What I
>maintain (I actually took this up with ES on IF MUD shortly before
>submitting my entry to her comp... should have known better, I guess)
>is that the readers can never grasp the entire complexity of the
>author's work, since the work in its integrity exists only in the
>author's mind. Therefore (and for other reasons) the creative work
>done by the reader is secondary; and anyway, one should only write for
>his own aesthetic pleasure.
Obviously, that's one opinion. If that's your opinion, though, it seems
odd that you would bother to submit things to a competition.
Here's another opinion, shifting to the general "you": if you create a
work with the intention of sharing it with an audience, it is your *job*
to provoke certain reactions in the audience. If you put something in
your work with the intent of people "getting it", and nobody "gets it",
it is a failure of your effort, rather than a failure of the audience.
Nowhere is this more obvious than in IF: for example a "guess the verb"
puzzle.
Of course you can create a work without intending to share it with an
audience; but if you do, why share it?
And speaking of submitting things to competitions, perhaps this
philosophical issue is one of the sources of my problem with the
attitude of some authors towards their annual comp submissions,
when games that are widely agreed "should not have been submitted"
are submitted anyway: perhaps the author is holding the philosophy
that the "reader" experience is secondary. As an author and a
reader/player, I find this distasteful; I *do* create things for
myself--and I don't share them, except to extremely interested
parties (e.g. significant others or very close friends). If everybody
else is creating things carefully tailored to creating a particular
experience for the reader/player-who-is-not-the-author, it seems
rather a waste of time to submit something which is only intended
to be comprehensible to the author.
Which reminds me of something musician Robert Fripp once said suggesting
why musicians should prefer to keep it a hobby and not go commercial.
It's extremely simple and seems to me very insightful, and it is this.
When you create "art" for yourself, we can count the number of 2-entity
relationships involved, and it's just one: you and the art. It's nice
and simple. If you now create art for an audience, we count the number
of 2-entity relationships, and it's exploded into three, with the
addition of the-audience-and-the-work and the-audience-and-you. Now
when you create, you have to not just account for what gives you pleasure,
but you have to consider what effect you want to have on the audience
and how to create it; and moreover you find yourself interacting on
some level with the audience directly. (This is more obvious for
performers of live music, but it can be seen even in this thread,
as authors express dissatisfaction to their audience over the
direct feedback they received from that same audience.)
If you throw commercial production into the mix, you add a new entity,
"the industry", and you blow out the 2-entity relationships to a total
of six, adding artist-and-industry (contracts, monetary payments or
lack thereof), the-work-and-industry ("we don't think this is commerical
enough; could you change..."), and audience-and-industry ("it costs HOW
much?" and "I hate copy protection")...
Which is why every time somebody talks about making IF commercially
viable, I shudder.
Personally, for me, the sweet spot is including an audience.
I do a fair amount of music that is intended for my ears only,
but that's mostly because I've never been able to put myself
in the listener's shoes and hear it from their point of view,
so I have little clue how to do it. For writing, I enjoy the
challenge of having an effect on an audience. I can write a
clever twist into a story, but I'll never be surprised by it.
None of that means I'm above posting something explaining what I
was trying to accomplish with a work that failed--see my reviews
of the walkthrough comp games--but I'm willing to accept that the
failure is mine, and such a posting is probably more aimed at
authors than players--"learn from this" rather than "you stupid fools".
(This is not to put words in your mouth: I'm talking about *my* post.)
SeanB
mattF
>
> (raises eyebrow) How rude.
Nah, it's just Jim's 'tough love'. He broke my arm once when I was
six. But he -said- he was sorry. =)
Actually, J's post was pretty positive, just cautionary and assuming
the worst -- and having seen the worst in action, I can tell you it's
bad enough to warrant said caution (see next comment). Go read it
again while thinking good, happy thoughts. Ommmm...
>It *would* be pretty
> stupid of me to put a creative work up for critique and then not only
> ignore the critique but suggest the critics are wrong... which leaves
> me feeling a bit hurt that you'd think I would.
Well, you have to understand, a lot of folks pass through here who
wouldn't think twice about it. Or even once, for that matter. So the
possibility was very real. No personal affront was intended, I'm
certain of that.
>... and if I didn't think I had *anything* worth saying, well, I
> wouldn't have entered the PrologueComp in the first place, would I?
Ever hear of a guy named Rybread Celcius?
-mattF
---------------------------------------------------------
"You think you can stop me with your stuff that you do??"
-'Squee', Johnen Vasquez
J.D. Berry
>Nah, it's just Jim's 'tough love'. He broke my arm once when I was
>six. But he -said- he was sorry. =)
STILL not over that? Matt, you wuss!
Oddly enough, though, I did accidentally (suuuure, it was) break my
brother's
foot when I was 6 and he was 3. I picked him up, and, when I put him down,
his foot twisted. I plan to do it again, when I'm 64...
>Actually, J's post was pretty positive, just cautionary and assuming
>the worst -- and having seen the worst in action, I can tell you it's
>bad enough to warrant said caution (see next comment). Go read it
>again while thinking good, happy thoughts. Ommmm...
>
In a nearby post, Adam stated what I was thinking. (And I wish I could say
I
deliberately set that up as an example of how all someone has to go on IS
the
work as it stands. My post did NOT convey intentions, Adam's did.) If
"everyone" else doesn't "get" your work, whose fault is it?
It doesn't (necessarily ;-D) mean you suck. Great artists and their works
have been known to be misunderstood by the public. It does mean that in
this
circumstance, you didn't capture the attention of some of our experts.
Dealing with artistic criticism seems to be art unto itself. How much does
an
author factor others' opinions? Capturing the ephemeral and subjective
feelings of an audience and then incorporating the lessons learned is a wee
difficult. But there are some general principles to be gleaned.
"All I am saying is give your next piece a chance."
And if you go on to produce more publicly accepted works, two more things
can
happen... :-D 1) Your intro-comp work will suddenly be seen as pure
genius--why didn't we see it before? 2) It will be seen a stepping stone.
A
"look how far you've come" piece.
>>It *would* be pretty
>> stupid of me to put a creative work up for critique and then not only
>> ignore the critique but suggest the critics are wrong... which leaves
>> me feeling a bit hurt that you'd think I would.
>
>Well, you have to understand, a lot of folks pass through here who
>wouldn't think twice about it. Or even once, for that matter. So the
>possibility was very real. No personal affront was intended, I'm
>certain of that.
>
Indeed, not.
>>... and if I didn't think I had *anything* worth saying, well, I
>> wouldn't have entered the PrologueComp in the first place, would I?
>
>Ever hear of a guy named Rybread Celcius?
>
Quiet guy? Kept to himself mostly? Nice enough to the neighbors?
Jim
Emily Short
black_co...@hotmail.com (Sasha) wrote:
> Fred M. Sloniker <sf...@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:<tgerht4vsvsd5g99e...@4ax.com>...
> > (wince) Excuse me while I staunch the bleeding.
> >
> > Anyway, I'd like to offer my own commentary on the commentary, but
> > recognize it's probably too soon to do so. When will it be safe for
> > me to open my yap?
> The review of my work
> comprised, let's see... five lines of text. Four, if you throw out
> word wraps.
Mmmph, well. I never promised anyone a lengthy review; in general I stuck
to the practice of saying about each entry exactly what I had to say and
no more. If you feel that the issues raised by your work deserved a more
thoughtful and even philosophical treatment, you may be right -- and I may
not be the person to offer such a treatment. My comments were meant as
pointers to people looking to play the games, to help them select ones
that they were most likely to find entertaining. You could always, I
suppose, offer your game to some person or group whose purpose it is to do
more detailed critique. I would consider it, in fact, extremely likely
that I did miss some of the point, especially given the wacky
moving-letter hijinx that made it hard for me to read all the text, and I
admitted as much in my comments.
> But here are the words of precious consolation, my friend: it does not
> make a halfpenny of difference. Or at least, it shouldn't. What I
> maintain (I actually took this up with ES on IF MUD shortly before
> submitting my entry to her comp... should have known better, I guess)
::raising an eyebrow::
I hope you don't mean you think that I rated your entry differently than I
would have had you not confronted me on ifMUD. But since your private
email accompanying the game raised a similar issue, let me reassure you on
two points:
1) I am not affronted by persons involving me in academic debate and do
not take their arguments personally, though I may decline to continue the
debate if I haven't time for it or don't find it enlightening;
2) even if I had been irritated with you personally for some reason, it
would have been irrelevant. I did my best to evaluate the works outside
the context of my personal relationships with the authors.
> is that the readers can never grasp the entire complexity of the
> author's work, since the work in its integrity exists only in the
> author's mind. Therefore (and for other reasons) the creative work
> done by the reader is secondary; and anyway, one should only write for
> his own aesthetic pleasure.
Other people have pointed out what is dubious about this -- especially,
why share it if you don't intend it to mean anything to anyone else? It's
true that meaning-in-the-author's-mind gets around some of the nastier
implications of reader-response criticism (which would remake the meaning
of the text with each successive generation of readers -- or, indeed, each
individual reader) or deconstructionism; it is the equivalent of
Berkeley's stance that absolute Truth exists in the mind of God, thus
clearing away problems with solipcism in a single sweep. So I can
understand the desire to assert authorial priority as a way to establish
once and for all some kind of definite truth to which one may refer, in
place of the slippery and shifting planes of other critical approaches.
(If you search Google, you will see me getting into trouble in an argument
with Adam Cadre about this perhaps a year and a half ago.)
HOWEVER. I cannot accept entirely the theory that the author's Vision is
the only thing that matters, or that it stands alone in the absence of any
input from the audience. For one thing, as Adam said, the author may or
may not be able to attain the Vision. Then, too, the Vision may change.
One thing that I have consistently noticed in all my artistic or
supposedly artistic endeavors is that the process of creation inevitably
affects the work itself. One makes compromises, changes one's plans,
discovers new avenues, in the process of creation. (Baxandall's _Patterns
of Intention_ explores this brilliantly for the case of painting.)
Secondly, inasmuch as the author intends there to be an audience for his
work and intends for that audience to receive it in a certain way, he will
tend to design his work for the benefit of those recipients. (If you
search Google, you will see me arguing this with Brandon Van Every about
two months ago. Wear hipwaders if you intend to read the posts.) So the
actual audience may not matter, in the sense that it doesn't affect the
text, but the *imagined* audience *does* -- if I'm writing a stand-up
routine to be performed before a convention of lesbian bikers I am likely
to choose a different style, approach, topic, etc., than I would if I were
writing promotional literature for the Promise Keepers. One might argue
that Pure Art is devoid of these considerations of Audience Response and
Purpose, and that the Pure Artist doesn't think about those things-- but I
don't believe it.
All of which is all the more significant in the context of Interactive
Fiction, where the audience will not even see the text you intend them to
see unless they also understand some of your ideas about what their
actions should be.
--
Emily Short
http://emshort.home.mindspring.com/index.htm
W. Top Changwatchai
I just came across a somewhat related article about authors who overreact to
negative reviews:
http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2001/03/02/authors/print.html
NOTE: Obviously you haven't done this, nor do I expect you to. I just
thought this was an interesting perspective on reviewing and feedback.
Top
--
W. Top Changwatchai
chngwtch at u i u c dot edu
Sasha
> > the readers can never grasp the entire complexity of the author's work,
> > since the work in its integrity exists only in the author's mind.
>
> Well, no. The reason that it's called a "work" is that it is the product
> of, well, work -- ie, what is actually produced. This may well fall well
> short of the artistic triumph the author had in mind, but that imaginary
> artistic triumph is not a work -- it's perhaps a handful of highlights of
> a work, with all the nuts and bolts connecting those highlights glossed
> over with an "enh, I'm sure all that stuff'll be great when I actually get
> to hammering it all out." If dreams and vague plans counted as work, then
> the most highly acclaimed pieces of IF today would be Hamsterworld and
> Mirrors [tentative title], followed closely by Pantheon and Psychotica
> part 18.
I am not sure we are speaking about the same thing (now _that_ was
politically correct, wasn't it? :-]). What I am talking about is a
completed work (maybe the word "work" is confusing; use "creation", if
you will), a finished result of a creative process. It is entirely
integral - but that integrity can only be grasped by the author
him/herself, because s/he is the only person (or one of the few) who
knows what went into it, what the sources were, what the messages are.
As for the reader, s/he may (in the best case) "slide over" the
surface of the work, admire it or despise it, but never get
underneath. Unless, of course, the author becomes insanely famous and
everyone gets out there to examine his/her biography, sources and so
forth :).
But that is beside the point. Otherwise, back to square one.
Ta, Sasha.
http://truespirit.virtualave.net (I plan to move, though).
Sasha
> I never promised anyone a lengthy review.
I never asked for one. I never promised anyone a rose garden, either
:).
> If you feel that the issues raised by your work deserved a more
> thoughtful and even philosophical treatment, you may be right -- and I may
> not be the person to offer such a treatment.
Could be :).
> My comments were meant as
> pointers to people looking to play the games, to help them select ones
> that they were most likely to find entertaining.
"Entertaining". That is the word I disagree with. As for your
rationale, though, I accept it.
> I did miss some of the point, especially given the wacky
> moving-letter hijinx that made it hard for me to read all the text.
"Wacky". That word again. I am starting to feel like Courage the
Cowardly Dog (that is to say, owwwwwwwwwwwwww :)). Actually, timed
keyboard interrupts (the way I used them) may well be used to support
my argument. They all relate to the sources that had influenced the
game. Without understanding the sources, it is nearly impossible to
appreciate the game in its integrity. However, it is also nearly
impossible to piece together these messages for anyone but me -
therefore, it is nearly impossible to grasp the meaning in its
integrity.
> I hope you don't mean you think that I rated your entry differently than I
> would have had you not confronted me on ifMUD.
Naaaah, of course not :).
> 1) I am not affronted by persons involving me in academic debate and do
> not take their arguments personally, though I may decline to continue the
> debate if I haven't time for it or don't find it enlightening;
>
> 2) even if I had been irritated with you personally for some reason, it
> would have been irrelevant. I did my best to evaluate the works outside
> the context of my personal relationships with the authors.
Good for you :).
> why share it if you don't intend it to mean anything to anyone else?
Why not? Perhaps a hundred years from now a famished child from Kenya
would see it, it would challenge him, he would hit the books and
eventually win a Nobel Prize for Literature (or World Peace)? Hey, a
guy can dream...
> It's
> true that meaning-in-the-author's-mind gets around some of the nastier
> implications of reader-response criticism (which would remake the meaning
> of the text with each successive generation of readers -- or, indeed, each
> individual reader) or deconstructionism; it is the equivalent of
> Berkeley's stance that absolute Truth exists in the mind of God, thus
> clearing away problems with solipcism in a single sweep.
Certainly. That's what I like about my attitude.
> So I can
> understand the desire to assert authorial priority as a way to establish
> once and for all some kind of definite truth to which one may refer, in
> place of the slippery and shifting planes of other critical approaches.
> (If you search Google, you will see me getting into trouble in an argument
> with Adam Cadre about this perhaps a year and a half ago.)
My, _that_ would take a lot of browsing :).
> For one thing, as Adam said, the author may or may not be able to attain the > Vision.
But I have. After all, if _I_, the author, haven't, then who _has_?
> Then, too, the Vision may change.
I feel slightly uncomfortable using big words like "Vision" and so
forth, although perhaps they are more accurate.
> One thing that I have consistently noticed in all my artistic or
> supposedly artistic endeavors is that the process of creation inevitably
> affects the work itself. One makes compromises, changes one's plans,
> discovers new avenues, in the process of creation.
But we are speaking about a finished work here.
> Secondly, inasmuch as the author intends there to be an audience for his
> work and intends for that audience to receive it in a certain way, he will
> tend to design his work for the benefit of those recipients.
Not necessarily. It seems foolish trying to curb your creative effort
to accomodate someone who is incapable of comprehending your work in
its integrity (see above).
> (If you search Google, you will see me arguing this with Brandon Van Every
> about two months ago.)
I did! And I got a kick out of that, too! Great stuff! (Except for the
parts when he starts preaching about the Truth he allegedly knows.
Sheesh.)
> (Wear hipwaders if you intend to read the posts.)
Hah! Why didn't I think of that when I started reading :)?
> Pure Art is devoid of these considerations of Audience Response and
> Purpose, and that the Pure Artist doesn't think about those things-- but I
> don't believe it.
Too bad. Not only "Pure Art" (I am still unsure what that is),
actually - art in general, also.
In the last analysis, I would advise you to read my Author/Reader
essays at http://truespirit.virtualave.net. They vocalize my views
more clearly and logically, thus, more convincingly.
Cheers, Sasha.
"If people disagree with me when I say that the world is corrupt, it
proves that they have already been corrupted" - F. Nietzsche.
Muffy
>
> In the last analysis, I would advise you to read my Author/Reader
> essays at http://truespirit.virtualave.net. They vocalize my views
> more clearly and logically, thus, more convincingly.
Yup, I read them. But for some reason, when trying to run exile.z5 on
my copy of WinFrotz (2.32 R5.3) I get a "Fatal: Bad Stack Frame" error.
Muffy.
Stephen Bond
Sasha wrote:
> I am not sure we are speaking about the same thing (now _that_ was
> politically correct, wasn't it? :-]). What I am talking about is a
> completed work (maybe the word "work" is confusing; use "creation", if
> you will), a finished result of a creative process. It is entirely
> integral - but that integrity can only be grasped by the author
> him/herself, because s/he is the only person (or one of the few) who
> knows what went into it, what the sources were, what the messages are.
> As for the reader, s/he may (in the best case) "slide over" the
> surface of the work, admire it or despise it, but never get
> underneath. Unless, of course, the author becomes insanely famous and
> everyone gets out there to examine his/her biography, sources and so
> forth :).
One thing I find troubling about this viewpoint is that it gives the
author almost endless avenues for self-justification--he can produce
reams of self-indulgent crap and claim it all as misunderstood genius.
Can anyone who believes in art (and I know there are some who don't :)
really accept this point of view? It seems to reduce art to so much
elaborate navel-gazing.
Also, the original point still stands: that a finished work (or
'creation' or whatever), and the author's impression of the work, are
not the same thing. The author may imagine his work to contain all sorts
of insights and messages and profundity, but they simply might not be
there. Maybe you find this hard to accept, but look at it this way. In
direct speech, it's difficult enough to get across what you really mean.
In the literary world, where meaning is conveyed through narrative and
metaphor and irony and other devices, it's more difficult again.
Also also, for the sake of simple aesthetics, it's not necessary to
write s/he all the time. Use one or the other, and I can guarantee you
will offend no-one.
Stephen.
Muffy
>
> Also, the original point still stands: that a finished work (or
> 'creation' or whatever), and the author's impression of the work, are
> not the same thing. The author may imagine his work to contain all sorts
> of insights and messages and profundity, but they simply might not be
> there. Maybe you find this hard to accept, but look at it this way. In
> direct speech, it's difficult enough to get across what you really mean.
> In the literary world, where meaning is conveyed through narrative and
> metaphor and irony and other devices, it's more difficult again.
I've been seeing this a lot recently. Our city is suffering a glut of
drumming circles, noise bands, and interpretive dancers. There are
extremely talented and capable people in all three fields, but here's
the problem (in my mind):
For the majority of people, having a philosophy just isn't enough, if
you're creating a public work. You should be able to communicate it.
Saying that a work is "looking for the right Reader" could be rephrased
as "my work is not communicating properly with the rest of the readers."
I see a lot of people around here who feel that as long as they have
the philosophy (which often isn't very captivating or sound to begin
with) and the motivation, that's all that matters. And sure, that's
fine, but when they go out to perform it would be good to differentiate
between "the audience isn't enlightened enough" and "my vision isn't
refined enough" when people are throwing tomatoes.
Both things are possible. When I create something, I want to know
what other people think...am I communicating my ideas and emotions to
them? Am I creating a strong impression? Am I captivating them? (The
last, I would say, is a good definition of "entertaining,"
incidentally). It's easy enough for me to say "I'm a genius, I'm
brilliant." Anybody can say that, if they dismiss all contrary
opinions.
People can point at Van Gogh or whoever and say "yes, but nobody
appreciated his genius either!" Well, people like Van Gogh are few and
far between. Most artists who weren't appreciated in their lifetimes
are not appreciated now either, I suspect. Somehow -- for the sake of
his friends who had to deal with him -- I hope Van Gogh never said
"they'll appreciate me when I'm dead!" :)
Munna: "humko dekho hum hai yara apni marji ke raja"
(Look at us, we are the kings of our destiny, oh friends!)
Milli: "duniya bole to maja hai na kaho khud ko raja"
(Wait for the world to call you king, don't call yourself king)
(yaaron sun lo jara, A.R. Rahman, Mehboob)
Muffy.
Daryl McCullough
>
>
>Sasha wrote:
>> What I am talking about is a completed work...It is entirely
>> integral - but that integrity can only be grasped by the author
>> him/herself, because s/he is the only person (or one of the few) who
>> knows what went into it, what the sources were, what the messages
>One thing I find troubling about this viewpoint is that it gives the
>author almost endless avenues for self-justification--he can produce
>reams of self-indulgent crap and claim it all as misunderstood genius.
But there *are* such things as misunderstood geniuses.
For example, Van Gogh's art was not widely appreciated
until after his death.
I have never studied the theory of art, but it seems
that we need a pretty sophisticated definition of good
art in order to allow for (and distinguish between)
misunderstood geniuses *and* self-indulgent crap.
--
Daryl McCullough
CoGenTex, Inc.
Ithaca, NY
John Colagioia
[...]
> Maybe you find this hard to accept, but look at it this way. In
> direct speech, it's difficult enough to get across what you really mean.
> In the literary world, where meaning is conveyed through narrative and
> metaphor and irony and other devices, it's more difficult again.
Uhm...I have to point out, here, that it's not all that difficult to inject
a particular tone into a piece of flat, ASCII text. I point to many
messages in this thread (including yours) as an example. It's a different
technique than for speaking, yes, but it certainly exists, has been around
for quite some time (old French satire, anyone? Or even certain Biblical
passages), and good writers know how to use this--I'd consider it a
prerequisite to being "good."
> Also also, for the sake of simple aesthetics, it's not necessary to
> write s/he all the time. Use one or the other, and I can guarantee you
> will offend no-one.
More specifically, use the pronouns in a consistent way. One technique
which is gaining popularity (and I happen to like it, oddly enough) is that
all "main text" uses one pronoun, with all individual examples or "side-bar"
text using the other.
John Colagioia
[...]
> For the majority of people, having a philosophy just isn't enough, if
> you're creating a public work. You should be able to communicate it.
> Saying that a work is "looking for the right Reader" could be rephrased
> as "my work is not communicating properly with the rest of the readers."
> I see a lot of people around here who feel that as long as they have
> the philosophy (which often isn't very captivating or sound to begin
> with) and the motivation, that's all that matters. And sure, that's
> fine, but when they go out to perform it would be good to differentiate
> between "the audience isn't enlightened enough" and "my vision isn't
> refined enough" when people are throwing tomatoes.
And, if I may point it out (in hopes of nudging this discussion back to the
original topic where it can be of more use), the goal of the "PrologueComp,"
as I recall, was to more or less encapsulate a game and engross the reader
(making him want more of the game) with less than two thousand characters. If
the judge or reader, then, "needs to know the inspiring philosophy," then it
might very well be "true art" or whatever one wants to call it, but it would
still--and probably foremost--be a bad entry for that particular competition.
Just like for the main competition, if someone were to enter a days-long game
(on the scale of the old Infocom games or larger), it could be of excellent
quality, but it would likely lose! Why? Because the suggested two-hour time
limit would not be sufficient to see enough of the game, in all probability,
to give it high marks. The same applies here, but is more strict, I believe.
[...]
Stephen Bond
> Stephen says...
> >One thing I find troubling about this viewpoint is that it gives the
> >author almost endless avenues for self-justification--he can produce
> >reams of self-indulgent crap and claim it all as misunderstood genius.
>
> But there *are* such things as misunderstood geniuses.
> For example, Van Gogh's art was not widely appreciated
> until after his death.
Well I don't think anyone was implying that there aren't such things
as misunderstood geniuses. And just because they do exist, it doesn't
follow that every artist who has had his work slated is a
misunderstood genius.
I would also venture that one reason we can appreciate the works of
Van Gogh as genius is that they stand on their own to be judged
and interpreted, and not because they are impenetrable personal
outpourings, decipherable only by the artist.
Stephen.
http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~bonds/
Sasha
> For some reason, when trying to run exile.z5 on
> my copy of WinFrotz (2.32 R5.3) I get a "Fatal: Bad Stack Frame" error.
Oh dear. All I can do is ship you my computer to use :). Still, as my
favorite movie puts it: "If at first you don't succeed... try, try
again."
Sasha
> [the author] can produce
> reams of self-indulgent crap and claim it all as misunderstood genius.
Depends on what you mean by as "self-indulgent crap" - something,
perhaps, that another person (not necessarily the author) may consider
a masterpiece. You might have a problem proving that your point of
view is the right one (and you will do that, won't you? Otherwise why
start a debate?).
Again, friends, colleagues, and neighbors: Author/Reader essays. It's
all in there.
> Also, the original point still stands: that a finished work (or
> 'creation' or whatever), and the author's impression of the work, are
> not the same thing. The author may imagine his work to contain all sorts
> of insights and messages and profundity, but they simply might not be
> there.
If the author would not know that, how would anyone else?
> In direct speech, it's difficult enough to get across what you really mean.
> In the literary world, where meaning is conveyed through narrative and
> metaphor and irony and other devices, it's more difficult again.
Precisely. Sometimes even impossible, wouldn't you say? And that is
exactly what my argument is about (including, but not limited to, that
notion).
Cheers, Sasha.
http://truespirit.virtualave.net
Sasha
> I've been seeing this a lot recently. [snip to the end of the entry].
Sounds plausible, but does not necessarily invalidate my argument.
> Munna: "humko dekho hum hai yara apni marji ke raja"
> (Look at us, we are the kings of our destiny, oh friends!)
> Milli: "duniya bole to maja hai na kaho khud ko raja"
> (Wait for the world to call you king, don't call yourself king)
> (yaaron sun lo jara, A.R. Rahman, Mehboob)
>
> Muffy.
Oh boy, oh boy. Правдивый
дух - наш
ответ
ифмаду и
рэйфу!!! There. I wanted to say this all
along :).
Muffy
My poor WinFrotz just refuses, again, again. :)
I'll give it a try on my Mac interpreter at home.
Muffy
>
> Muffy <muffysb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3B27BE5A...@hotmail.com>...
> > I've been seeing this a lot recently. [snip to the end of the entry].
>
> Sounds plausible, but does not necessarily invalidate my argument.
You're right, it doesn't invalidate your argument. It's my reaction
when somebody tells me I "just don't get it," as though I were the weak
link. Maybe I am...there's no way to say. Usually, in order to judge
whether or not the work is brilliant and I'm just not getting it, I
observe both sides of the debate. How many of the people who are
throwing tomatoes do I respect? And how many defenders of the art do I
respect? How many people ARE defending the art? How many of them are
friends of the artist? :)
If the balance (evaluated in my own, biased mind) comes out in favour
of the art, I will slink off and say "I guess I just didn't get it."
(Ulysses, Moby Dick, whoever wrote "The Devils" was it Dostoyevsky?)
Otherwise, all I can say is "I don't agree."
I myself have produced works that people didn't like, and in all of
those cases (except possibly one) I've had to sigh and admit that what I
did just wasn't very good (well thought out, executed, or
"entertaining").
However, this is all pretty moot as it relates to IF, since I haven't
been able to play "Exile."
> > Munna: "humko dekho hum hai yara apni marji ke raja"
> > (Look at us, we are the kings of our destiny, oh friends!)
> > Milli: "duniya bole to maja hai na kaho khud ko raja"
> > (Wait for the world to call you king, don't call yourself king)
> > (yaaron sun lo jara, A.R. Rahman, Mehboob)
> Oh boy, oh boy. Правдивый
> дух - наш
> ответ
> ифмаду и
> рэйфу!!! There. I wanted to say this all
> along :).
Easy for you to say!
Muffy.
Stephen Bond
> > [the author] can produce
> > reams of self-indulgent crap and claim it all as misunderstood genius.
>
> Depends on what you mean by as "self-indulgent crap" - something,
> perhaps, that another person (not necessarily the author) may consider
> a masterpiece. You might have a problem proving that your point of
> view is the right one (and you will do that, won't you? Otherwise why
> start a debate?).
Ok, let's summarise our differing points of view. I believe that some works
of art *are* greater than others, in an objective sense: that some things
are genius, and that some things are, well, self-indulgent crap [1]. You seem
to believe that since the author can be the only true judge of a work's
quality, pretty much anything can be genius. Of course I would find it very
difficult to prove that my point of view is the 'right' one. But then again,
you would find it very difficult to prove yours, and indeed you do no such
thing in your author/reader essays.
The question is not, I believe, which point of view is 'right', but which
one is more useful. And I believe your point of view leads to an artistic
climate where just about anything goes - works with poor grammar, incoherent
plotting and poor implementation could all be lauded. Matt Barringer's
'Detective' could be put on a pedestal with 'Spider and Web'. After all,
who knows what Matt was *really* trying to achieve?
Of course, maybe you don't believe there such things as objectively poor
grammar or objectively poor characterisation. In which case we're going to
keep arguing in circles.
(As to 'why start a debate?' - well it beats sitting here pretending to
do work :)
> > Also, the original point still stands: that a finished work (or
> > 'creation' or whatever), and the author's impression of the work, are
> > not the same thing. The author may imagine his work to contain all sorts
> > of insights and messages and profundity, but they simply might not be
> > there.
>
> If the author would not know that, how would anyone else?
Well many works contain signs that they were trying to do more than they
actually achieved. To pick a crude example: 'Jarod's Journey' thinks it's
getting people 'closer to God', but it isn't. We can see that it isn't. But
we can also see what it's trying to do.
Note: even in the unlikely event that someone was converted by Jarod's
Journey (and I'm laughing as I type this), it wouldn't change my point.
Why? Well it comes back to my belief in objective artistic quality again.
> > In direct speech, it's difficult enough to get across what you really mean.
> > In the literary world, where meaning is conveyed through narrative and
> > metaphor and irony and other devices, it's more difficult again.
>
> Precisely. Sometimes even impossible, wouldn't you say? And that is
> exactly what my argument is about (including, but not limited to, that
> notion).
I don't see how this advances your point. If it is indeed impossible to
communicate the intended meaning through a narrative, then surely the reader,
rather than the author, would be better placed to appraise the finished work.
Stephen.
http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~bonds/
[1] I know this view of objective artistic quality is desperately
unfashionable in the postmodern era, but hey, I'm willing to take the flak.
Adam Cadre
> I know this view of objective artistic quality is desperately unfashionable
> in the postmodern era, but hey, I'm willing to take the flak.
Well, the reason it's desperately unfashionable is that it's really,
really dodgy. The standards for what comprises a good work of art in a
given medium are human constructions, and those standards vary widely from
person to person and group to group. A prose style that the readers of
one era consider gripping can seem unbearably leaden to another. An album
that one generation of listeners consider intolerable noise can be hailed
by another as 45 minutes of pure beauty. A play that one culture views as
speaking eloquently to the human condition can be judged as alien nonsense
by another. Etc.
This doesn't mean that we have to descend into solipsism or shrug are
shoulders and say, "So, all works of art are equally good, really!" The
idea of objective aesthetic value may indeed be not only unfashionable but
simply flat-out wrong, but that doesn't mean that pure subjectivity is the
only alternative. The solution? *Inter*subjectivity. Communities -- be
they large ones like "Western culture," small ones like "IF players," or
ones in between like "Gen-X Americans" -- automatically create sets of
baseline communal standards that, *within that group*, can be considered
to function as measures of "objective" aesthetic worth. So we can say
that by our standards, such and such a work had good characterization
despite its weak prose, or some such, giving us a basis to communicate
about art without falsely claiming that Good Characterization is some
sort of fundamential universal constant.
Mark Musante - Sun Microsystems
> This doesn't mean that we have to descend into solipsism
You know, I've seen that word used several times in raif in the
past few days and I still don't know what it means. Yeah, I know
the definition -- I know how to use the dictionary as much as the
next girl -- but I don't know what the word *means*, if you know
what I mean.
I just needed to say that. Please don't let me interrupt.
-markm
Stephen Bond
theory
of art, so apologies if any of the following sounds naive or ignorant. But
here goes :)
"Adam Cadre" <gri...@cascadia.drizzle.com> wrote in message
news:9gb005$l3c$1...@cascadia.drizzle.com...
> Stephen Bond wrote:
> > I know this view of objective artistic quality is desperately
unfashionable
> > in the postmodern era, but hey, I'm willing to take the flak.
>
> Well, the reason it's desperately unfashionable is that it's really,
> really dodgy. The standards for what comprises a good work of art in a
> given medium are human constructions, and those standards vary widely from
> person to person and group to group. A prose style that the readers of
> one era consider gripping can seem unbearably leaden to another. An album
> that one generation of listeners consider intolerable noise can be hailed
> by another as 45 minutes of pure beauty. A play that one culture views as
> speaking eloquently to the human condition can be judged as alien nonsense
> by another. Etc.
I realise that artistic standards are human constructions: indeed the best
I could hope for 'objective artistic quality' is that it is objective by
*human*
standards. And so a visiting alien race could see our most treasured
artistic
works as the product of primitive minds, and a pigeon could just see
Michaelangelo's David as a handy place to perch for a while.
I also realise that artistic standards vary across different groups and
cultures.
But do they really vary that widely? Throughout the western world, and
increasingly in other cultures, we use similar tools for critical analysis.
We can
investigate an argument to see if it contains a clear logical progression.
We
can examine a narrative for evidence of coherent plotting or convincing
characterisation. Even in more abstract arts like music and painting, there
are
forms and structures that can form the basis for a critical appraisal.
Also, do groups and cultures themselves vary that widely? Are there some
common elements of human experience that are shared across cultures? I
believe so. And if a work resonates somehow with this shared human
experience, could we describe this as an 'objectively' good work of art?
The same argument can be applied across time periods as well.
> This doesn't mean that we have to descend into solipsism or shrug are
> shoulders and say, "So, all works of art are equally good, really!" The
> idea of objective aesthetic value may indeed be not only unfashionable but
> simply flat-out wrong, but that doesn't mean that pure subjectivity is the
> only alternative. The solution? *Inter*subjectivity. Communities -- be
> they large ones like "Western culture," small ones like "IF players," or
> ones in between like "Gen-X Americans" -- automatically create sets of
> baseline communal standards that, *within that group*, can be considered
> to function as measures of "objective" aesthetic worth. So we can say
> that by our standards, such and such a work had good characterization
> despite its weak prose, or some such, giving us a basis to communicate
> about art without falsely claiming that Good Characterization is some
> sort of fundamential universal constant.
I agree with the idea that different communities can create standards
within their group, and that these become the 'objective' standards to judge
by. But for me this raises two questions.
Firstly, what if we make this community arbitrarily large? We speak of
western culture as a community, and with justification. But what if we
extend
this, and speak of the 'World Community'? (And surely in the age of
communications, it is not unreasonable to speak of a world community.)
Sure, there will be differences of opinion on what constitutes good art,
just as there are differences of opinion in the community we call
'western culture', just are there are differences of opinion in the
community we call 'IF players'. But I think we would be able to iron
out some baseline standards, which we could treat as 'objective'
artistic standards for the present world community. And if we can
accept this, it is not too big a leap to extend our world community to
include every human who has ever lived. I believe that there is something
universal about the human condition, across cultures and centuries, and
that the best art can tap into this.
Secondly, are the standards of all communities equally valid? It could be
that all the inmates of St.Cedric's mental hospital believe Britney Spears
is the greatest musician in history. Or that the critical consensus in the
local 12th grade is that 'Pearl Harbor' is the kewlest film ever. Are these
opinions as valid as those of more educated and experienced
people? Is it possible for us to compare the standards of different
communities? And if so, is this not a tacit acknowledgement that there
are 'objective' standards that we can judge by?
Stephen.
http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~bonds/
Dennis G. Jerz
news:9gb005$l3c$1...@cascadia.drizzle.com...
> only alternative. The solution? *Inter*subjectivity. Communities -- be
> they large ones like "Western culture," small ones like "IF players," or
> ones in between like "Gen-X Americans" -- automatically create sets of
> baseline communal standards that, *within that group*, can be considered
> to function as measures of "objective" aesthetic worth. So we can say
> that by our standards, such and such a work had good characterization
> despite its weak prose, or some such, giving us a basis to communicate
> about art without falsely claiming that Good Characterization is some
> sort of fundamential universal constant.
Nicely put, Adam. Every genre has its literary/critical communities (such
as the one that centered on Shakespeare & Co, the Paris bookstore where the
American expatriates hung out in the 20s, or the Algonquin Round Table in
New York, or the courts in the days of the royal bards). But literary
communities for the traditional genres are, today, so sweepingly huge in
scope (number of novels produced, number of plays written, etc.) that it's
virtually impossible to stay on top of them unless you are a full-time
professional. Yet there are a handful of IF types who seem to have
succeeded in writing reviews of every IF comp game, and are thus in a
remarkable position to comment on trends, offer critical criteria, etc.
--
Dennis G. Jerz, Ph.D.; (715)836-2431
Dept. of English; U Wisc.-Eau Claire
419 Hibbard, Eau Claire, WI 54702
------------------------------------
Literacy Weblog: www.uwec.edu/jerzdg
Jason Melancon
Cadre) wrote:
> Stephen Bond wrote:
> > I know this view of objective artistic quality is desperately unfashionable
> > in the postmodern era, but hey, I'm willing to take the flak.
>
> Well, the reason it's desperately unfashionable is that it's really,
> really dodgy. The standards for what comprises a good work of art in a
> given medium are human constructions, and those standards vary widely from
> person to person and group to group.
Then again, so does language.
In other words, maybe some of the more basic "standards" aren't human
constructions exactly, but human instincts. As we now know, our
biological imperative is not merely to speak, but to do so in certain
patterns common to everyone. Thus making possible TADS 3. :)
IMO, same goes for morals, and probably lots else besides. But at the
moment, since not much is known, these are *matters of faith.*
Now maybe the inborn esthetic "standards" which everyone may have in
common, laid bare, would be uselessly broad and obvious to anyone not
from another planet. Could well be.
--
Jason Melancon
OKB -- not okblacke
>Secondly, are the standards of all communities equally valid? It could be
>that all the inmates of St.Cedric's mental hospital believe Britney Spears
>is the greatest musician in history. Or that the critical consensus in the
>local 12th grade is that 'Pearl Harbor' is the kewlest film ever. Are these
>opinions as valid as those of more educated and experienced
>people?
As far as I can tell, the only way to show that they aren't as valid would
be to have some objective rubric by which to judge artistic opinion. However,
this isn't acceptable if what you're trying to prove is that such a rubric
exists. If I don't believe that art can be objectivized, I'm not likely to
accept any argument which is based on the premise that artistic taste can be
objectivized.
--OKB (Bren...@aol.com) -- no relation to okblacke
"Do not follow where the path may lead;
go, instead, where there is no path, and leave a trail."
--Author Unknown
Adam Cadre
> I realise that artistic standards are human constructions
Cool. (You'd be surprised at how many people believe quality to be wholly
immanent in the object itself.)
> I also realise that artistic standards vary across different groups and
> cultures. But do they really vary that widely? [...] Also, do groups and
> cultures themselves vary that widely? Are there some common elements of
> human experience that are shared across cultures?
This is more about content than form, but there's a famous essay called
"Shakespeare in the Bush" that may be apposite here. I found a copy at
http://www.cc.gatech.edu/people/home/idris/Essays/Shakes_in_Bush.htm, so
go have a look -- even if you decide it's mostly tangential, it's
wonderfully entertaining.
> Throughout the western world, and increasingly in other cultures, we use
> similar tools for critical analysis.
Do we? A Marxist critic with an eye on the political implications of
every sentence might as well be on a different planet from a
poststructuralist critic who believes that a text is just a freeplay of
signs with no reference to the outside world -- not to mention from the
psychoanalytical critic convinced that Rameses -> condoms -> impotence.
Even outside the academy, there's diversity -- take summer movies, the
analysis of which seems to be evenly divided between those who use the
standards they apply to films and those who use the standards they apply
to roller coasters. For a long time, a lot if not most of Western culture
judged literature by the extent to which it fostered "improvement" in the
reader, not the first criterion for most folks today. In other times and
places the prime consideration in the evaluation of art has been the
extent to which it promoted certain orthodoxies (be they varieties of
Christianity or Leninism) -- and such is still the case with such outfits
as Capalert. This is turning into a ramble, but the point is, there's
plenty of diversity on this issue over time and space.
> Secondly, are the standards of all communities equally valid? It could
> be that all the inmates of St.Cedric's mental hospital believe Britney
> Spears is the greatest musician in history. Or that the critical
> consensus in the local 12th grade is that 'Pearl Harbor' is the kewlest
> film ever. Are these opinions as valid as those of more educated and
> experienced people?
Wow, what an interesting set of issues this raises.
Poll that 12th grade class about the discrepancy between their view and
that of the critics, and you'll likely get responses like, "That's 'cause
critics like boring crap." This sort of thing has come up in my classes
before -- you should've heard the howls of protest that went up when I
casually mentioned that TOP GUN was my least favorite film. I have no
doubt that if I were to screen a few of my favorites for them (say, THE
SWEET HEREAFTER, THREE COLORS: RED, and DR. STRANGELOVE) they would've
been bored out of their minds, and the fact that the critics are firmly on
my side would matter to them not a whit: they'd ascribe the difference not
to their own poor taste but to them liking cool stuff and me liking dull
stuff. Yet I've given up on many a revered author (eg, Joyce, Hofstadter)
and when I have, my reaction has been, "Hrm, this is above me." The
difference?
My suspicion is that it comes down to this: have you ever had the
experience of having your own taste improve? Have you ever once liked A
more than B, then later learned how to appreciate something like B and
found that your enjoyment of it is genuinely deeper? If you have, then
you're prepared to accept that others might have had the same experience,
and so if you like C and the critics prefer D, you might well think,
"Okay, maybe they're getting more out of D than I would -- and maybe
they're getting more out of D than I'm getting out of C."
Of course, at this point one of the founders of Bad Subjects, Joe
Sartelle, would interject, "Hey! What's with all this 'my pleasure is
better than your pleasure' talk?" Before we declare that critics' and
aficionadoes' opinions are "more valid" than that of the lay audience,
here's at least one counterargument: the love one has for one's spouse of
50 years may be deeper and richer than a junior-high crush -- but chances
are, it's not *stronger*. A 7th-grader may know absolutely nothing about
love, and the crush in question may vanish entirely in a week, but for
emotional intensity, for abject, hormone-fueled longing and weeping and
gnashing of teeth, then for all its shallowness, puppy love is tough to
beat. My friends who like classical music may get more out of it than an
11-year-old gets out of an NSYNC concert -- but who's the one screaming
orgasmically? Whose experience is more "valid"? Who's to judge?
Muffy
Stephen Bond wrote:
> I also realise that artistic standards vary across different groups and
> cultures.
> But do they really vary that widely? Throughout the western world, and
> increasingly in other cultures, we use similar tools for critical analysis.
> We can
> investigate an argument to see if it contains a clear logical progression.
> We
> can examine a narrative for evidence of coherent plotting or convincing
> characterisation. Even in more abstract arts like music and painting, there
> are
> forms and structures that can form the basis for a critical appraisal.
I think this depends on how wide "that widely" is. I would venture to
guess: yes, they traditionally have varied widely. This is all a little
different now because we are more exposed to other artistic standards
from other cultures, so each culture seems to be adopting bits of other
cultures. For instance, the whole Urban Primitive thing, right down to
a basic nose ring. Put a nose ring on a girl in 1955, and she'd
probably end up placed in a mental hospital. Meanwhile, in 1955, plenty
of Indian girls were big on their nose rings, bindiya, etc.
In just the last 5 or 6 years, bindiya (forehead decorations, 'dots')
have become really faddish. You wore one of those to a club 6 years ago
and you were ugly. Now it's just fine.
I realize this is about 'fashion' as opposed to art, so let's move on
to those throat singers from Tuuva (?) (do we owe Feinman for making us
appreciate that sound?), Indian Carnatic scales & instruments (thanks,
George Harrison), those big Inuit stone sculptures of human
beings...now, among makers of those sculptures, I'm sure there's a huge
range of criteria for how "good" they look. 10 years ago they would
have just looked "primitive" to the western world...now they are
positively viewed as just "native." But I doubt the average person (me
included) can judge one from the other.
On a more personal note, I play Indian pop music for friends when I'm
feeling hopeful. They cover their ears.
> Secondly, are the standards of all communities equally valid? It could be
> that all the inmates of St.Cedric's mental hospital believe Britney Spears
> is the greatest musician in history. Or that the critical consensus in the
> local 12th grade is that 'Pearl Harbor' is the kewlest film ever. Are these
> opinions as valid as those of more educated and experienced
> people?
Maybe the inmates know something we don't? I don't think we can prove
one way or another that different communities have more or less valuable
standards of artistic judgement (I strongly feel we can't claim an
OBJECTIVE difference in value, though maybe a PRACTICAL one, sure). But
we all have different opinions as to what comprises education and
experience...in my lookout, you have to decide all of this stuff for
yourself -- mark your own critical yardstick -- which makes my view
subjective.
In public school (grade 8), my fantastic music teacher Mr. Ziegler
(whose daughter is now the "Lizard Woman" for Cirque de Soleil, good job
Andrea!) brought in Laurie Anderson's "O Superman" and played it for
us. Afterwards we needed to discuss: was it music? Nobody could come
up with convincing reasons why it WASN'T, but few of the children
actually LIKED it. He made a great point about a classical composer who
his wife vehemently hated -- she despised this composer's work -- but
one day -- in a certain rare mood -- she found herself enraptured by a
composition she'd previously hated. His point: artistic judgement is
individual, and it changes over time.
16 years later I still agree. Some days I love to listen to artist
X. Some days I can't stand him. I used to make fun of people who
listened to White Zombie, I thought it was crap music. Now I love it.
I don't see much objectivity in everyday judgements about art, in me or
in others.
Muffy.
Adam J. Thornton
Muffy <muffysb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>George Harrison), those big Inuit stone sculptures of human
>beings...now, among makers of those sculptures, I'm sure there's a huge
>range of criteria for how "good" they look. 10 years ago they would
>have just looked "primitive" to the western world...now they are
>positively viewed as just "native."
Completely off-topic, but allow me to force some of my own aesthetic
criteria onto all of y'all:
Speaking of Inuit art: Manasie Akpiliapik, _Respecting The Circle_.
It's upstairs in the Art Gallery Of Ontario in Toronto. It's terrifying
art. I love it. If you're in Toronto, go see it.
Adam
--
ad...@princeton.edu
"My eyes say their prayers to her / Sailors ring her bell / Like a moth
mistakes a light bulb / For the moon and goes to hell." -- Tom Waits
Muffy
>
> Speaking of Inuit art: Manasie Akpiliapik, _Respecting The Circle_.
> It's upstairs in the Art Gallery Of Ontario in Toronto. It's terrifying
> art. I love it. If you're in Toronto, go see it.
>
> Adam
I'm overdue for another AGO excursion. When the smog count in Toronto
has dropped a few notches, I will go and check it out. Thanks for the
recommendation!
Muffy.
Sasha
> You seem
> to believe that since the author can be the only true judge of a work's
> quality, pretty much anything can be genius.
Not exactly. I am simply saying that the author is the only person who
can understand his/her own work in its complexity; that does not mean,
however, that the work itself is inevitably great. That's the sad
part: even if it is, those who do not entirely comprehend it may
easily label it as "self-indulgent crap" and go about their business,
calm and content, whereas how can one judge if he has not grasped the
subject fully? (I suppose this brings up the issue of judging in
general, but I won't go in there :).
> Of course I would find it very
> difficult to prove that my point of view is the 'right' one. But then again,
> you would find it very difficult to prove yours, and indeed you do no such
> thing in your author/reader essays.
If the essays _en-soi_ are not enough to convince, I doubt I will make
another effort to do so.
> The question is not, I believe, which point of view is 'right', but which
> one is more useful.
That, I believe, is called "vulgar materialism".
> And I believe your point of view leads to an artistic
> climate where just about anything goes - works with poor grammar, incoherent
> plotting and poor implementation could all be lauded.
I am truly sorry you have derived this conclusion from my words. Let
me assure you that I would not praise a work with all these drawbacks
without a sufficient reason, nor would I encourage anyone to do so.
> Of course, maybe you don't believe there such things as objectively poor
> grammar or objectively poor characterisation.
[sighhhhh]
As ever, Sasha.
John W. Kennedy
> For a long time, a lot if not most of Western culture
> judged literature by the extent to which it fostered "improvement" in the
> reader, not the first criterion for most folks today.
Oddly enough, it still seems to be taken for granted by the loonies who
believe that Shakespeare was someone else. Because they cannot accept
him for what he is, they insist that he must be an encyclopedist, or
else he wouldn't be Great, and since Shakespeare wasn't an Oxbridge
man.... Point out to them that in point of fact his law and music are
bluff, his science and geography are wrong, and his history is all out
of best-sellers, and their brains lock up.
> My friends who like classical music may get more out of it than an
> 11-year-old gets out of an NSYNC concert -- but who's the one screaming
> orgasmically? Whose experience is more "valid"? Who's to judge?
May I recommend C. S. Lewis's "An Experiment in Criticism"?
--
John W. Kennedy
(Working from my laptop)
Dennis G. Jerz
> you're creating a public work. You should be able to communicate it.
Playwright Tom Stoppard recently addressed the Royal Academy of Arts on
precisely this theme...
In his speech, he says that he observed that "...a fault line in the history
of art had been crossed when it had become unnecessary for an artist to make
anything, when the thought, the inspiration itself, had come to constitute
the achievement..."
Excessively long URL:
http://www.the-tls.co.uk/archive/search_results2.asp?section=this+week&sub_s
ection=&id=26463
Muffy St. Bernard
>
> "Muffy" <muffysb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3B27BE5A...@hotmail.com...
> > For the majority of people, having a philosophy just isn't enough, if
> > you're creating a public work. You should be able to communicate it.
>
> Playwright Tom Stoppard recently addressed the Royal Academy of Arts on
> precisely this theme...
>
> In his speech, he says that he observed that "...a fault line in the history
> of art had been crossed when it had become unnecessary for an artist to make
> anything, when the thought, the inspiration itself, had come to constitute
> the achievement..."
Go, go, Tom Stoppard!
Around here (in Waterloo, where I live), you don't need to be able to
play a drum. You just need to carry your bongos around, and bang out
some simple rhythm in public places, and you're a "spiritual drummer" of
some kind. This must drive people who ARE good drummers sort of crazy,
because it makes people like me run SCREAMING from drummers.
And even though the public glares at them for demanding attention by
doing something annoying (and doing it poorly), they can escape
criticism by saying "the public doesn't understand, they can't
appreciate what I'm doing, they are not enlightened enough to recognize
my philosophy." No, that's not true: the public doesn't like it because
it's poorly done, and the drummer won't get any better without admitting
there is room for improvement.
Some local establishments hold parties with "no drumming" on the
advertisements, this has gotten so bad. :)
Muffy.
Sasha
> aficionadoes' opinions are "more valid" than that of the lay audience,
> here's at least one counterargument: the love one has for one's spouse of
> 50 years may be deeper and richer than a junior-high crush -- but chances
> are, it's not *stronger*. A 7th-grader may know absolutely nothing about
> love, and the crush in question may vanish entirely in a week, but for
> emotional intensity, for abject, hormone-fueled longing and weeping and
> gnashing of teeth, then for all its shallowness, puppy love is tough to
> beat.
Are we seeing some autobiographical references here :)?
> My friends who like classical music may get more out of it than an
> 11-year-old gets out of an NSYNC concert -- but who's the one screaming
> orgasmically? Whose experience is more "valid"? Who's to judge?
Yeah, yeah. For some - orgasmic seizures, for the others - highest
spiritual enjoyment. Fair enough.
Grrrrr.
Ta,
Hannibal Lec - erm, Sasha.
Magnus Olsson
Sasha <black_co...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> My friends who like classical music may get more out of it than an
>> 11-year-old gets out of an NSYNC concert -- but who's the one screaming
>> orgasmically? Whose experience is more "valid"? Who's to judge?
>
>Yeah, yeah. For some - orgasmic seizures, for the others - highest
>spiritual enjoyment. Fair enough.
And I suspect many people *would* be screaming orgasmically at
symphony concert if it had been socially acceptable, rather than
a way of getting thrown out.
--
Magnus Olsson (m...@df.lth.se, m...@pobox.com)
------ http://www.pobox.com/~mol ------
Daryl McCullough
>And I suspect many people *would* be screaming orgasmically at
>symphony concert if it had been socially acceptable, rather than
>a way of getting thrown out.
Ah. Maybe that's the way for classical music to get a mass
audience. A symphony needs to hire a few hundred teenage girls
to scream and shout at concerts, to mob the conductor at the
airport, to faint when the violinist blows them a kiss.
--
Daryl McCullough
CoGenTex, Inc.
Ithaca, NY
Richard Bos
> m...@df.lth.se (Magnus Olsson) says...
>
> >And I suspect many people *would* be screaming orgasmically at
> >symphony concert if it had been socially acceptable, rather than
> >a way of getting thrown out.
No, we wouldn't.
> Ah. Maybe that's the way for classical music to get a mass
> audience. A symphony needs to hire a few hundred teenage girls
> to scream and shout at concerts, to mob the conductor at the
> airport, to faint when the violinist blows them a kiss.
No, thank you. The rest of us actually wants to _listen_ to the music,
not shout through the better bits.
Of course, with most pop concerts the shouting makes no noticable
difference in listening experience ;->
Richard
Magnus Olsson
Mind you, this *was* more or less the way people used to react to
virtuosi like Paganini or Liszt.
Magnus Olsson
Richard Bos <in...@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl> wrote:
>da...@cogentex.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote:
>
>> m...@df.lth.se (Magnus Olsson) says...
>>
>> >And I suspect many people *would* be screaming orgasmically at
>> >symphony concert if it had been socially acceptable, rather than
>> >a way of getting thrown out.
>
>No, we wouldn't.
Who are "we"? I wrote "many people", not "everybody" or "many people,
including Richard Bos".
>> Ah. Maybe that's the way for classical music to get a mass
>> audience. A symphony needs to hire a few hundred teenage girls
>> to scream and shout at concerts, to mob the conductor at the
>> airport, to faint when the violinist blows them a kiss.
>
>No, thank you. The rest of us actually wants to _listen_ to the music,
>not shout through the better bits.
I also prefer to listen to the music.
But this is getting silly. My point, let's see, I lost it here
somewhere - ah, there it is. My point was that these things are a
matter of culture - and I mean the audience - not of which kind of
music is being played.