Dogmatism heads its ugly rear

[Pete Hartman <bradley!bucc2!pwh@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu>]

>Date:    Sat, 05 Aug 89 14:12 PDT
>From: IED0DXM%OAC.UCLA.EDU@mitvma.mit.edu
>Subject: Kate-echism XXIII.8.v: no more gooDIE two-shoes...
>
>     If you take time to notice what IED said, you'll see no contention
>that your opinion about mules "made no sense". IED pointed out that
>it _has_no_validity_. Not because it is illogical in its own (rather
>warped) way, but _because_it_is_irrelevant_. This is clear and
>unequivocal. KATE BUSH SAID IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SONG.

IED seems to have a problem here.  Since WHEN does the artists' intent
limit the interpretation of a work?  It would be quite a shock to my
(High School) Sophomore English teacher to find that the only true
interpretation was that originally consciously intended by the author
(or whatnot).  He spent SO much time finding EVERY SINGLE POSSIBLE
biblical reference in Hemmingway's _Old Man and the Sea_ and POUNDING
them all into our young brains.  I really don't think that Ernie
spent his days thinking "hey, if he's on the water for _80_ days,
that's TWICE the hardship that Christ went through!  Great!"

The 80 days image is (despite the fact that I hated it) a valid 
interpretation of what happens in that novel.  Is the "validity" of 
this interpretation any less because the symbolism isn't necessarily 
conscious?

(IMHO) Art is there for each person to interpret in his or her own
individual way, and I don't think you can get away saying that MY
interpretation is any less valid than yours, or even that of the
creator of the work.  Another example:  I sometimes feel the urge
to draw pen-and-inks that are rather abstract.  Sometimes I draw
them with conscious intent, and sometimes I just let the pen do
what it wants and decide if I like it afterwards.  Some people,
upon being shown these works of art (choke :-) have pointed out
things that they saw in them that they liked that I never would have
seen without their mentioning them.  Does this mean that they are
WRONG, simply because I didn't put that there?  Or they WOULD be 
wrong if I decided that I couldn't see that or didn't want it to
be there?   I don't think so.

If we are only limited to "proper" interpretations sanctioned by the
artist, why bother making art at all?