Thanks for your note on list members, etc. Although its contents were not
news, I'm not ungrateful. I had also noted earlier, in one of your responses
to the list, that you WERE concerned with conveying meaning. I had already
reflected on that note and realized what you've repeated below (more or
less) - that sometimes it's vital to have "facts" be clear (who's married to
whom, which diagnosis does this character have etc.) I also now understand
that dramatic impact has to do with play viewers not knowing everything from
the beginning. (In my work as a clinical psychologist, I guess I have to
confess to delaying enhanced awareness of some issues until an opportune
time - although of course I have no script.)
I recognize that my work values and assumptions will differ from those of
graphic artists but enjoy stretching my perspective to appreciate our
differences. That being said, I do feel more kinship with your perspective
in maintaining substantial attention to how your artistic product is likely
to be received.
I wonder if some members of the public might feel that the lack of concern
with public reception is a flaw in contemporary fine art. Still, I recognize
the deleterious impact of the requirement by the Russian communist regime of
socialist art.
Who knows the truth?
Geoff C
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Examining the theory
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 14:27:08 EDT
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)
