Does it matter how an artist interprets his art?

[Urethra Franklin]

So the whole David Chase "Did Tony Soprano live?" debate that raged today got me thinking about something.

I'll use the ambiguous ending as a starting point.

As a viewer, does it matter what David Chase thinks happened at the end of the finale? We watched the show and we all have our own opinions of what we inferred from what we were presented.

The same applies to any other TV show or movie with an ending that doesn't give us concrete closure, whether it be Breaking Bad or Inception or Donnie Darko or whatever.

Do we need the artist to explain his vision for his creation to us or is that vision rendered moot by the fact that the creation becomes all of ours when it enters the public sphere, making our own interpretations just as valid as what the creator thinks or intends?

Personally, I like getting an "official" account from the director or author or songwriter or whomever the creator may be, but that still won't dissuade me from forming my own opinions on something and I think they're just as valid as anybody else's.

So my question is, does an "official" interpretation really matter?

[Deleted]

To a degree but the artist is not the final word when it comes to his or her art.

Wallace Stevens is probably the best American poet of the 20th century but his criticism of his work, and his notions about poetry in general, leave much to be desired. Other people understood his work better than he did.

Editing also becomes an issue. The most famous poem of the 20th century, T.S. Eliot's the Wasteland, was heavily edited by the poet Ezra Pound, to the extent that it becomes almost a collaborative work. Eliot's views of the work, one written as he was losing his sanity, would likely not be more important than the clarity that Pound would offer (though Pound has plenty of issues as well that snowball into potential acts of treason during W.W.II.)

[SEAN CARLESS]

Aug 28, 2014 0:46:46 GMT -5 Urethra Franklin said:

So the whole David Chase "Did Tony Soprano live?" debate that raged today got me thinking about something.

I'll use the ambiguous ending as a starting point.

As a viewer, does it matter what David Chase thinks happened at the end of the finale? We watched the show and we all have our own opinions of what we inferred from what we were presented.

Opinions are moot and rendered obsolete in the face of creator revelation. He is the god and creator of that world. If he outright tells us what has happened then it is absolute. If he wants it to be ambiguous, i.e. he has no true ending, then yes, people an freely interpret it the way they choose. But when the actual architect of a story TELLS you what the meaning or ending is, then that is literally what it is. And as such people have to accept it. You're only entitled in this case to have enjoyed it or not.

[Kevin Hamilton]

What he said happened happened inasmuch as its his work. You can have your own personal 'head canon', and interpret things any way you choose, but with art, whatever the creator of said art says is "official" is.

Though no need to get bound up in things too much. We are after all talking about



But yeah, that's the fun of creating your own universe, it's YOURS. You share it with others, and they absorb, enjoy, interpret it how they see fit, but end of the day, it's still your word that's law.

[Deleted]

The creator of a work is the one who sets the canon of the work. You're free to interpret it how you want, but ultimately it is the creator's ideas and story.

[Clash, Never a Meter Maid]

Speaking as someone who has tons of head-canons for different fandoms, the creator still has the final word.

The Aladdin post-apocalyptic theory is fun and all, but it can't compete with the carpet ride scene or the Prince Ali number.

[Mozenrath]

Aug 28, 2014 1:12:01 GMT -5 SEAN CARLESS said:

Aug 28, 2014 0:46:46 GMT -5 Urethra Franklin said:

So the whole David Chase "Did Tony Soprano live?" debate that raged today got me thinking about something.

I'll use the ambiguous ending as a starting point.

As a viewer, does it matter what David Chase thinks happened at the end of the finale? We watched the show and we all have our own opinions of what we inferred from what we were presented.

Opinions are moot and rendered obsolete in the face of creator revelation. He is the god and creator of that world. If he outright tells us what has happened then it is absolute. If he wants it to be ambiguous, i.e. he has no true ending, then yes, people an freely interpret it the way they choose. But when the actual architect of a story TELLS you what the meaning or ending is, then that is literally what it is. And as such people have to accept it. You're only entitled in this case to have enjoyed it or not.

Tell that to everyone who jumps down George Lucas' flannel shirt.

I like to hear what the artist has to say about their art, if they choose to share it, but depending on the level of ambiguity of the art, sometimes people are going to have more of a case for their particular take on an art piece.

That said, if it were this easy, it'd have saved a lot of people from being around debates about songs. "Blurred Lines is about rape." "No, it isn't." "Oh, okay then. Seeya next week whenever you do something else stupid, Mr. Thicke." "Always a pleasure."

[Hit Girl]

Canon may be set by a creator. Interpretation of the quality, justification and reasoning behind the canon may however be freely applied by the audience.

For example, George Lucas wrote a story where Anakin Skywalker joined the Emperor. Is that open to interpretation? No. He joined him. That is established canon.

However, if Lucas regards that action as being the tragic fall of a great hero, the audience is fully entitled to disagree and regard it as poorly written contrived shite.

[Deleted]

Aug 28, 2014 1:12:01 GMT -5 SEAN CARLESS said:

Opinions are moot and rendered obsolete in the face of creator revelation. He is the god and creator of that world. If he outright tells us what has happened then it is absolute. If he wants it to be ambiguous, i.e. he has no true ending, then yes, people an freely interpret it the way they choose. But when the actual architect of a story TELLS you what the meaning or ending is, then that is literally what it is. And as such people have to accept it. You're only entitled in this case to have enjoyed it or not.

THANK YOU. Holy shit man, soooo many people don't get this, and insist that "Death of the Author" is the only valid way to critique a work of art, it's infuriating.

[Deleted]

Aug 28, 2014 8:09:33 GMT -5 Clash, Never a Meter Maid said:

Speaking as someone who has tons of head-canons for different fandoms, the creator still has the final word.

The Aladdin post-apocalyptic theory is fun and all, but it can't compete with the carpet ride scene or the Prince Ali number.

IMO, a lot of those theories like that are just trying to make things more complicated than they really are or trying to turn something innocent "dark" just for the hell of it. Setting aside the reality that it was just a vehicle for Robin Williams to do rapid-fire impressions, you can either go with the post-apocalyptic theory, which is a hugely unlikely long shot, or just the idea that Genie exists outside of time.

[Kevin Hamilton]

The audience is free to not like something, but ultimately it's still the artist's world.

As was mentioned, Lucas is a good example, audience may disagree vehemently with him--still his world.

Although I will say, collaborative efforts will muddy the waters, but only in the sense that then it's the creatorS world.

If you didn't birth it though, you don't get a say.

[HMARK Center]

Art is multi-facted, and interpretations of that art are equally multi-facted.

Take a sculpture or painting: the artist may say what he/she believes the piece is about, what their goal was in composing it, what subtext they were looking to put in...but part of the allure of physical art is the ability of the viewer to see it, know the artist's intent, yet still find something else going on that speaks to them, or pick up on a vibe where the viewer might say "I wonder if the artist was aware that his/her sense of <joy, anger, sadness, whatever> was coming through when he/she did this?". Or how about interpreting the work in a historical context decades down the road, a luxury not available to the artist at the time the piece was composed?

The artist has the chief say in what the subject of the work is, what the intent was, but the audience is welcomed to find new interpretations or after-the-fact analyses when viewing it for itself.

Art is almost always collaborative; it takes the artist and the viewing audience to create the entire mosaic of what built the piece and what it accomplished as a piece of art.

[Hit Girl]

Chase at least didn't revise something already established, but added details previously unknown.

The real problem, which really goes back to Lucas, is when a creator changes his mind on something years after the thing has been released and has been woven into the public consciousness and then expresses bewilderment when people don't enthusiastically embrace the changes.

[Deleted]

No.

Once art is in the public sphere the artist's interpretation of their art isn't really a factor. A large part of an artistic expression is how it affects the person watching/reading/hearing that particular piece. Moreover if the artist has to explain his art then they're no longer letting that piece speak for itself but rather including their own dialogue into the experience of that artistic piece.

Unless someone is actually accusing the artist's intentions of being sexist/racist/etc, then clarification is probably a good thing, but from a purely artistic perspective I'd say its not.

[Kevin Hamilton]

Audiences are free to "interpret" whatever they want. Creator determines meaning. There is no collaboration with the audience there. A reader, listener, watch can say "I take from this X", and that's perfectly fine FOR THEM; but artist intent is still artist intent.

If you had nothing to do with bringing something into the world, it doesn't matter what you think it means ultimately.

[Deleted]

Changing times do impact texts, however.

People don't read the Island of Doctor Moreau and think about how vivisection is a great crime against humanity nor do they ponder the possibilities of galvanism when reading Frankenstein. The Island of Doctor Moreau enjoyed immense popularity in college English courses, including a revival in popularity during the early 2000's, because it was a gateway in which to discuss the concept of genetic engineering and its effect on our world. Wells and Shelley wrote about things that resonate with us in ways that they just couldn't predict (well, maybe Wells, as he predicted a great many things) but the base concepts were fully theirs. You have to read a 19th century text in the context of its time but you shouldn't avoid the fact that you yourself are a 21st century reader.

[Goldenbane]

No, not really. If the artist decides to make a future movie, game, or whatever that goes along with their vision, that's fine, but until I see/read/play/whatever it...it didn't happen. For example, in the original Total Recall I believe either the director or the story author says Doug Quaid gets lobotomized at the end, despite many contradictions occurring in the movie. I don't know if the actual story ever had a sequel or not, but the Arnold movie does not. In my opinion, until the guy who said that makes another movie, with Arnold's lobotomized carcass being drug away by Rekall guys, I'm free to interpret the end of the movie however I wish (and I choose to the believe everything happened).

When it comes to "changes" like what Lucas does, nope, sorry none of that counts for crap. The original version still exist, and is preferred by I think, most people. If Leonardo Divinci came back from the grave and decided Mona Lisa needs a giant honking nose, an eye piercing, and two hobos eating stew in the background, just because he thinks that's how it should be NOW...means nothing. The original set the standard, and now the artist is nothing more than an interpreter themselves.

[mizerable]

It does when it sucks.

[Blindkarevik]

One of the things I absolutely hated in school is when a teacher would TELL you what something means or symbolizes. Then you have to remember it and pretend to agree to it because you know there's gonna be questions on the test saying, "What does the rose symbolize?" and your answer would have to be "The loss of innocence in the time of war and an endless search for beauty in an ugly world." When you just KNOW the original writer was like, "I like roses... I'll put one here."

[Cyno]

I think it does, although if a work is meant to be ambiguous or open-ended then we won't really know the artist's intention most of the time (see: Edgar Allan Poe). But let's not mince words here. Chase said Tony lived so he lived. That isn't interpretation, that's black and white fact.

Although an amusing story I read once was Isaac Asimov (I think it was him) was in the back of a classroom when a professor was talking about what the message of one his works was. Asimov told him what it actually meant and the professor argued with him telling him how wrong he was. I'm not quite sure if that professor knew he was arguing with the creator of the work over its meaning, but it's a funny tale.