The corroboration is that I said it. The full statement is: "William Conger says an artwork cannot be assured by its explanation and is unlikely to be ruined by any explanation."
WC --- On Sun, 3/8/09, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: > From: [email protected] <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Text and Images > To: [email protected] > Date: Sunday, March 8, 2009, 3:07 PM > In a message dated 3/8/09 10:39:07 AM, > [email protected] writes: > > > > Ordinarily, an artwork cannot be assured by its > explanation yet is unlikely > > to be ruined by any explanation. > > > Two somewhat arbitrary assertions, with no great back-up > corroboration: > > (1) An artist's or critic's "explanation" > may lead to greater "understanding" > of sorts, and "admiration" in a contemplator, but > never to an "aesthetic > experience" -- except of a bogus sort, like the > shallow awe that arose in the > minds of young readers of Eliot's "The > Wasteland" a couple of generations ago when > they read the "Notes" to the poem. > > (2) I think an artist's prouncements about the > "meaning" or "theme" of a work > restrict the work's apparent scope, and hobble > viewers' imaginations. In > fiction or theater, talk of its "meaning" tends > to suggest the play is merely a > useful ladder leading up to the real value: a non-fiction > lesson. The real value > of a play or novel or movie for me is in the multi-rung > ladder itself, the > story and its effects at each rung, just as it is in an > opera or symphony. > > If the rungs can evoke tensions, laughter, gasps, rills of > deep assent, a > playwright should leave it to the viewers to find their own > meanings and themes > -- and they will be as various as the viewers' > histories and receiving > apparatuses. There is, in the end, no "the" > meaning of any work of art. > > > > > ************** > Worried about job security? Check out the 5 safest jobs in > a > recession. > (http://jobs.aol.com/gallery/growing-job-industries?ncid=emlcntuscare00000002)
