If the interpretation is made up by the reader, then the reader should be able to read Jack and Jill and derive the entire story of Hamlet? — NKBJ
Why not then just stare at a loaf of bread and imagine all the plots of all the stories you want perfectly tailored to your own tastes and desires? What's the point of having any art at all? — NKBJ
Why not then just stare at a loaf of bread and imagine all the plots of all the stories you want perfectly tailored to your own tastes and desires? What's the point of having any art at all? — NKBJ
Whereupon you've apparently forgotten that we're talking about interpretations of something that we're not making up. — Terrapin Station
They're still in response to some particular artwork. They're someone telling us what they see the artwork's meaning(s), significance(s), symbolism(s) etc. to be. — Terrapin Station
Well, then you DO think that interpretations are bound to the actual words on the page. — NKBJ
You can't write a book about the moon and actually be writing about WW2. — NKBJ
You want it both ways, Terrapin. But it doesn't work that way. You can't both say that an interpretation is about something and then say it doesn't have to be about that thing. — NKBJ
Where did I say anything like "It doesn't have to be about that thing"? — Terrapin Station
You can't write a book about the moon and actually be writing about WW2.
— NKBJ
You can't per whom? It's up to individuals to decide. There's nothing that would prohibit anyone from any interpretation should they have it. — Terrapin Station
Here:
You can't write a book about the moon and actually be writing about WW2.
— NKBJ
You can't per whom? It's up to individuals to decide. There's nothing that would prohibit anyone from any interpretation should they have it. — Terrapin Station
It would be nice if you could stop contradicting yourself. But then you couldn't make your argument, so I guess I understand why you feel compelled to do so. — NKBJ
It would be nice to have a discussion with someone intelligent enough to understand what I'm saying but who can forward a cogent objection to it without it constantly just being straw men, as if I'm addressing a bunch of Gumbies or something. " — Terrapin Station
And I'd rather talk to someone who can understand what I'm claiming, yet here we are. — Terrapin Station
I understand that you're wrong. — NKBJ
I don’t know where you come from but that is not the case where I live. — Brett
Which is why studying Shakespeare as a play works so well. — Brett
Not sure why you keep apologizing. Stop it! LOL — Noah Te Stroete
I tend to agree that Shakespeare shouldn’t be taught in general education high school classes. It’s too advanced linguistically for many, and it just discourages them from learning. It should be taught as an advanced elective class in high school as preparation for college, though, I think. — Noah Te Stroete
Art is still taught at my children’s schools. Sketching, painting, pottery, sculpture, etc. If Zhou is teaching at a school that has eliminated art for budgetary reasons, then he probably isn’t teaching a lot of privileged kids. — Noah Te Stroete
Just for those elitists trying to paint anyone who doesn't think Shakespeare is objectively brilliant as uneducated, or inexperienced in the 'great bard's' works, here (if I've done the link right) is an MA graduate in Shakespearen Studies, explaining why he thinks the plays are deeply flawed. — Isaac
You can argue that the objective measures we currently use are meaningless or insignificant to you, — curiousnewbie
but art is made popular if it is loved by most people, — curiousnewbie
so it is your job to try to convince people that the media you prefer is better on some measure . — curiousnewbie
They can’t do this with a film. There’s no room for interpretation in ‘The Transformers’, all they can do is watch it passively and then write an analysis of it. — Brett
Just in the news yesterday, by the way--a high school that did their own production of the film, Alien: — Terrapin Station
It's logically impossible to say that it's objectively true that all interpretation of art is subjective since that is an interpretation of art. — NKBJ
No. There is no 'good art' or 'bad art', nor is there any such thing as 'better' art. If the artist presents someting as art, it is art. Your part, and mine, is that we get to say "I like it" or "I don't like it". It's nothing more than personal taste. And every expression of personal taste is correct and unchallengeable, although other such expressions may contradict it. That's what personal taste is.
So no, there is not even "a little justification for this". — Pattern-chaser
I'm not a big believer in objectivity for any aspect of our emotional, intellectual, spiritual, and social lives. Science, morals, aesthetics. Everything always comes down to a matter of human values. Good or bad, right or wrong, true or false. But saying something is a matter of values is not the same as saying it is all a matter of preference. Values are a product of social, cultural, and personal factors. Biological factors. — T Clark
I think learning to read, write, and speak is different from the other arts. — T Clark
That at least is the consensus of the art world. — Noah Te Stroete
That does not seem to be an interpretation of art. At most, it is an interpretation of the definition of art. — ZhouBoTong
In order to define art, you must interpret it. — NKBJ
He means "an interpretation of art" in the sense of "here's what this painting is about in my view." — Terrapin Station
That does not seem to be an interpretation of art. At most, it is an interpretation of the definition of art.
— ZhouBoTong
In order to define art, you must interpret it. — NKBJ
It also really changes the texture of this whole discussion. It's hard to make the case that judgments of aesthetic quality are elitist if the artist knows to expect that judgment and perhaps welcomes it. — T Clark
How does my quote contradict that? And your statement seems to prove you WERE talking about "an interpretation of the definition of art" not an interpretation of any piece of art. I am probably overly concerned with grammar and semantics, I think I understand the spirit of what you are getting at. — ZhouBoTong
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.