Analyzing Analysis (11/18/2018)
If we find meaning in a medium of art where the artist didn't intend meaning, is our take still valid?
In other words, is meaning objective or subjective?
If meaning is objective, then there is only one true interpretation of a work: the meaning that the artist intentionally put into the work. This is a view that is also shared with my current lit teacher, who thinks that the author of a poem or literary work always puts one definite meaning into the work. According to my teacher, this meaning can be found through the literary devices and schemes (such as the symbols) that the author puts into his work.
The other argument is that meaning is subjective. If meaning is subjective, then you can find any meaning in any work, regardless of what the author intended. It can be argued that sometimes authors will put unintentional meaning into a work. A good example of this is the comparison of King Kong to the American Slave trade. This comparison works so well: King Kong was captured on an island, where he was taken to America in chains. When he was in America, he was shown off for money and then but also feared by the people, as they saw him as dangerous and detrimental to society. The parallels here seem undeniable and nearly all critics see King Kong as an allegory for slavery. However, according to the creators of King Kong, there is no meaning behind King Kong. Does this mean that the comparison of King Kong to the slave trade is wrong?
Another interesting facet of these arguments is the fact that artists sometimes subconsciously put meaning into his work. Many authors and movie producers describe their works as just coming out of their minds, with them being a medium of some sort. In his magnum opus Dark Tower book series, Stephen King appears as a character in his own book. The character Stephen King is described as a medium of the god of the Dark Tower Series, Gan. Stephen King describes himself as being possessed by a god to write his novels. The writing seems to write itself. Sometimes, the author or the movie director doesn't even understand the full meaning of his work until he is halfway finished or even finished with that work.
Maybe artists always subconsciously put meaning into their work, or maybe not. You could argue that every meaning that you derive could have been subconsciously put there by the artist. But, you can never know that for sure, either. Maybe the author just wanted to write something, and there was no deeper meaning to the work.
When I wrote Teeming (this writing is also on my blog), I wrote it with no deeper meaning. I then gave it to my friends to analyze. It amazed me how much meaning they could pull out of the work, even when I intentionally didn't put anything in. I eventually even began to convince myself that I might have put this meaning in unintentionally.
In my opinion, meaning is subjective until the artist disproves this by providing his objective view on his own work. As long as Stanley Kubrick never reveals what is going on in the Shining, the fans can always stamp their own subjective views. The meaning behind a piece of art can be seen as comparable to a movie/book theory; it is true to the viewer until proven otherwise.
this post was inspired heavily by the video The Art of Overanalyzing Movies by Now you see it on YouTube. Go watch his video, it is a very, very, very interesting watch that puts insight into a question I've asked myself countless times in Literature class.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h67AHvHMtxY&t=0s&index=13&list=LLnj4fkcahnO4KUOD2CBf08g
In other words, is meaning objective or subjective?
If meaning is objective, then there is only one true interpretation of a work: the meaning that the artist intentionally put into the work. This is a view that is also shared with my current lit teacher, who thinks that the author of a poem or literary work always puts one definite meaning into the work. According to my teacher, this meaning can be found through the literary devices and schemes (such as the symbols) that the author puts into his work.
The other argument is that meaning is subjective. If meaning is subjective, then you can find any meaning in any work, regardless of what the author intended. It can be argued that sometimes authors will put unintentional meaning into a work. A good example of this is the comparison of King Kong to the American Slave trade. This comparison works so well: King Kong was captured on an island, where he was taken to America in chains. When he was in America, he was shown off for money and then but also feared by the people, as they saw him as dangerous and detrimental to society. The parallels here seem undeniable and nearly all critics see King Kong as an allegory for slavery. However, according to the creators of King Kong, there is no meaning behind King Kong. Does this mean that the comparison of King Kong to the slave trade is wrong?
Another interesting facet of these arguments is the fact that artists sometimes subconsciously put meaning into his work. Many authors and movie producers describe their works as just coming out of their minds, with them being a medium of some sort. In his magnum opus Dark Tower book series, Stephen King appears as a character in his own book. The character Stephen King is described as a medium of the god of the Dark Tower Series, Gan. Stephen King describes himself as being possessed by a god to write his novels. The writing seems to write itself. Sometimes, the author or the movie director doesn't even understand the full meaning of his work until he is halfway finished or even finished with that work.
Maybe artists always subconsciously put meaning into their work, or maybe not. You could argue that every meaning that you derive could have been subconsciously put there by the artist. But, you can never know that for sure, either. Maybe the author just wanted to write something, and there was no deeper meaning to the work.
When I wrote Teeming (this writing is also on my blog), I wrote it with no deeper meaning. I then gave it to my friends to analyze. It amazed me how much meaning they could pull out of the work, even when I intentionally didn't put anything in. I eventually even began to convince myself that I might have put this meaning in unintentionally.
In my opinion, meaning is subjective until the artist disproves this by providing his objective view on his own work. As long as Stanley Kubrick never reveals what is going on in the Shining, the fans can always stamp their own subjective views. The meaning behind a piece of art can be seen as comparable to a movie/book theory; it is true to the viewer until proven otherwise.
this post was inspired heavily by the video The Art of Overanalyzing Movies by Now you see it on YouTube. Go watch his video, it is a very, very, very interesting watch that puts insight into a question I've asked myself countless times in Literature class.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h67AHvHMtxY&t=0s&index=13&list=LLnj4fkcahnO4KUOD2CBf08g
Comments
Post a Comment