Artistic interpretation(s)

[John Precedo <jp@doc.ic.ac.uk>]

I thought I'd post this article I came across a while back in rec.arts.movies,
regarding artistic interpretation, as a counter-point to IED's insistance that
we accept KaTe's interpretation of her works. All right, she is the artist 
(and a very talented one at that), and her interpretation of her own works
has more validity than some lame-brain fan who just likes listening to these
works (ie. me!). HOWEVER, we are all entitled to make our own interpretations
of her works, and they are valid to us , and to other people if it makes sense.
There is no one, true interpretation of a work of art. Anyway, enough waffle -
here's the posting..........

> Article 4589 of rec.arts.movies:
> Subject: Re: Citizen Kane, and how not to watch movies
  (blah, blah, blah deleted)
>The answer to all the above questions is:  Because those are the criteria
>that I chose to use.  Look, this may come as a surprise to you, but 
>appreciation of any art form is a purely subjective matter.  There is no
>"right" or "wrong" criteria to use in forming a judgement.  If, to me,
>"good" painting requires a recognizable human face, then Picasso is a lousy
>artist _to me_.  Does the fact that I am in a minority with this opinion
>make me "wrong"?  Does the fact that the "art experts" disagree with me
>make me "wrong"?  No.  It just makes me different (and wouldn't it be
>boring as hell if we all agreed on everything).  You, sir, do not get to
>decide whether or not my approach is "appropriate".  The creator of the
>art does not even get that privilege.  It is mine alone, just as you
>are the only one who gets to decide what _your_ approach will be.
>I will relate to you something my writing teacher told me, which applies
>equally to all art and which you would do well to remember:  Once a work
>of art leaves its creator's hands it is _no longer his_.  It belongs
> to the public.  It does not matter what the creator intended, it only
>matters what the viewer/reader sees.
(more blah, blah, blah deleted)
> --James Preston

See what I mean? 
(ahem..What's IED doing that flame-thrower? Is |>oug reaching for his matches at
this very instant?? All will be revealed in their next postings folks!)

--John

______________________________________________________________________________
John Precedo		|| jp@gould.doc.ic.ac.uk
Department of Computing,||
Huxley Building,	||  You have the right to remain silent. If you give up
Imperial College,	||         this right, we have the right to
London SW7 2BZ		||        F L A M E  Y O U ! !  (only kidding!)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
			disclaimer....wot's dat?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------