ON THE BUTTON mando
________________________________ From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Mon, August 16, 2010 1:56:49 PM Subject: Re: Validity of Cheerskep's Argument This remark is only a sidebar to the recent exchange about the value of non-preciseness in "art". As I read the exchanges, it brought to mind the struggle I had in keeping separate two general impulses I've had in my day. When I was/am in philosophy, and when I was a CEO who sometimes even wrote contracts (philosophy as an undergraduate is great preparation for law school) my aim was as little ambiguity as possible. When I began to write plays, I had to learn to abandon the impulse to rinse out all ambiguity. I trained myself to dodge questions that began, "What did you mean when you wrote..." I learned to fight off the urge to have a character give a speech spelling out exactly what he had in mind. Just tell the story -- this is what the characters said and did. The impulse to deprive the audience of any opportunity to "interpret" is not only false to life, but it smothers interest.
