So What's, Uh, the Deal?

Welcome to my blog on James Joyce’s Ulysses. Yeah, I'm actually serious. Over the next four months I plan to finally read all of James Joyce’s Ulysses and blog about it in every way possible. Why? Because I have always wanted to read this much hyped and heralded book. Why not do so with the added support of a blog? Also, it could turn out to be kind of fun, right? RIGHT?

Saturday, January 30, 2010

The Artist's Art Means What?!?!

So bear with me here but I feel like expanding a bit on yesterday’s post. Recently I was in an argument with a friend (you know who you are) who was suggesting that any meaning gleaned from art that is not explicitly intended by the artist is, by definition, invalid. In other words, if the artist doesn’t say it, then she doesn’t mean it, and if she doesn’t mean it, than it doesn’t matter. So, all the “sharp imagery” and “matronly metaphors” discussed in yesterday’s post become immaterial if Joyce did not explicitly mean to convey, well…, sharp imagery and matronly metaphors.

I reject this notion for a number of reasons. Generally speaking, I think being open-minded when consuming art personalizes the experience, which in turn gives it meaning, real meaning, meaning to the viewer, not the creator, which is kind of the point, right? As long as it is well considered, supported, and presented, I say why not? Even if the artist has absolutely no intention whatsoever of conveying meaning X, this by no means invalidates meaning X as long as meaning X is well reasoned (ah Reason, my old friend, glad you could chime in). And perhaps most importantly, when considering the artist as creator, who’s to say that the creator, any creator, can actually fully control the truth of their work. Who’s to say that the artist can actually make their art say something exact and the same for everyone in all contexts. It can’t be done of course. Besides, it’s fun to consider everything, to look everywhere, to leave no stone unturned. Makes the world go ‘round, ya know?

“The moment you think you understand a great work of art, it’s dead for you.” - Oscar Wilde

Indeed.

2 comments:

  1. I totally agree with you, and partially agree with Oscar (Wilde, that is) -- a work of art is never dead to you for you can never completely understand it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You have described my defintion of art. I don't think it can be art unless it is appreciated. I.e. seen, heard...whatever. The meaning comes from both creator and audience.
    I think if you apply this to any medium, you'll find it holds up. I also love the way meaning and impact of art changes with each viewer/listener.

    ReplyDelete