In a message dated 9/23/08 12:35:39 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> I understand that the artist is concerned only
> with his/her perception - whether an observer shared in some specific
> meaning is apparently not important;
>
Geoff -- You have to keep in mind that this forum is dominated by visual
artists, among whom you're likely to find many -- though not all -- who
honestly
feel, "The hell with being preoccupied with the effect of my work on others. I
paint what I want."
I know I can be a pain in the neck for many fellow-listers, but, say I, I am
from the forum point of view healthily different. In two ways: For one, I seem
to be at the moment the only contributing "philosopher". For another, I'm an
"artist" of sorts, but my "art" is different from visual art.
I'm a playwright. Behind every line I write there is a good deal of concern
about its effects on contemplators (both readers and live audience members).
The concerns are various. Often the concern is focused on immediate
impression: If I write a line that's supposed to be moving or funny or
surprising, and
in every developmental reading or workshop performance it proves to be a dud,
chances are I'll either revise it (or its preparatory lead-up) or delete it.
Accepting what I think is the spirit behind your use of the word 'meaning',
I'll make an ad-hoc distinction between two kinds of "meaning-notion" I want to
occasion. One I'll call cerebral -- "exposition" -- the other, emotional. In
exposition, the narrative writer wants the viewer to take on board certain
"facts" about characters and their situation -- e.g. this woman is that man's
daughter, this guy is very rich, that fellow has a terminal illness. In those
cases I know the "fact" I want to convey "clearly".
But much of the "emotional" impact, the idiosyncratic interpretation a viewer
brings to bear, I'm happy to leave to the viewer. I LIKE it when I see
audience members leaving the theater arguing about given characters or events.
I can
imagine Shakespeare's being content to see viewers holding different
judgments about the sanity or pitiability of Hamlet or Lear. Granted, if I
created a
character that I liked and found intensely interesting, and every single viewer
felt he was boring and a bastard, I'd take that as damn bad news.
In practice, though, except in the farce I wrote, I know my characters are
multiplex, and I understand it when some viewers like them some of the time and
are repelled some of the time. I don't expect uniform reactions in an audience
to characters like those. In one of my current scripts, there's an
ultra-smart, highly educated guy. I'm aware some viewers will recoil from him
on that
fact alone. Well, I don't write for those people. I don't want to spend two
hours watching slackers in someone else's play, and I sure don't want to spend
months writing about one. So in that sense I "paint what I want". But behind
that decision is a conviction there are potential viewers who also like being
with gifted characters.
As a writer, I work at creating a gripping storyline. And I'm looking to grip
not just myself but an audience.
All of which is to say that "whether an observer shared in some specific
meaning is apparently not important" doesn't apply to this would-be "artist".
**************
Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial
challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and
calculators.
(http://www.walletpop.com/?NCID=emlcntuswall00000001)
