FloatingDowntheLiffey
Guest
|
Post by FloatingDowntheLiffey on Aug 25, 2005 10:36:45 GMT -5
no...sexuality and self-loathing are subjects. a theme is a statement. "Gay love is inherently masochistic" for instance (just an example--yikes).
i do not subscribe to the school of thought that reveres artists who leave art "open to interpretation." that is not to say taht every work of art can be summarized in a single statement--to the contrary, in fact. however something "open to interpretation" is no less random than the scattering of acorns below an oak tree. thats not to say that such a phenomenon is not beautiful--but it is not art. Art must have an intent--however vague. even art about the inexpicable randomness of the universe has a theme.
see Sylvan Barnet's WRITING ABOUT ART for a full explication
whyyyyyyyy am i an art histroy major??? AGGGGGGHHHH
|
|
FloatingDowntheLiffey
Guest
|
Post by FloatingDowntheLiffey on Aug 25, 2005 10:38:05 GMT -5
EDIT: not really a school of thought--a consensus of lay opinion
(no offense doc)
|
|
|
|
Post by dr. strangelove on Aug 25, 2005 11:14:34 GMT -5
ok, my example of a theme was probably off, but i wrote that this morning on my way to work, and i hadn't had my diet coke yet  however, i do think you misunderstood my point... i'm not saying art that is intentionally left open for interpretation is necessarily a positive thing; i can't stand abstract expressionism either (except rothko... those giant orange squares are cool) what i was arguing is closer to the old "reader response theory", rejecting the "constructivism" of the moderns. yes, an artist (usually) has an intent in his/her artwork, and i would argue that jamie has very precise subjects/themes/etc. but due to the listener's personal experiences/knowledge/perceptions, the actual "meaning" of the song is individual to every listener. for example, due to a very painful recent break-up with a guy who treated me like shit, i have a very strong personal reaction to the song "sad redux-o-graph".. my understanding of that song is now closely linked to my experiences. now, you may have had very similar experiences, and our understanding of that song could be similar, but it's doubtful that you cringe on the same lines i do, or start tearing up on the same note i do... eventually, a song (or any artwork) takes on a personal meaning that is outside of the artist's control |
|
|
|
Post by lysine on Aug 25, 2005 16:44:31 GMT -5
what i was arguing is closer to the old "reader response theory", rejecting the "constructivism" of the moderns. yes, an artist (usually) has an intent in his/her artwork, and i would argue that jamie has very precise subjects/themes/etc. but due to the listener's personal experiences/knowledge/perceptions, the actual "meaning" of the song is individual to every listener. for example, due to a very painful recent break-up with a guy who treated me like shit, i have a very strong personal reaction to the song "sad redux-o-graph".. my understanding of that song is now closely linked to my experiences. now, you may have had very similar experiences, and our understanding of that song could be similar, but it's doubtful that you cringe on the same lines i do, or start tearing up on the same note i do... eventually, a song (or any artwork) takes on a personal meaning that is outside of the artist's control im with strangelove on this one. there are so many songs by xiu xiu that mean something to me that probably has nothing to do with whatever it was intended to be about. i dont care what jamie wrote the song about usually, i care about the ironic, coincidential understanding i have for the lyrics he wrote, whether they are the same as jamies understandings or not. and FOR GODS SAKE PEOPLE, why do you all care so much about what is what? |
|
|
|
Post by lysine on Aug 25, 2005 16:47:15 GMT -5
while on the topic, does anybody know about what the experiance was that made jamie write "baby captain?" Ive loved it for so long but never knew what jamie had it about? i just think its the cutest song he sings, and i love it.
|
|
|
|
Post by kevin on Aug 25, 2005 17:03:13 GMT -5
baby captain was written by jamie to his brother as a song to encourage him.
|
|
|
|
Post by urgeintheicebox on Aug 25, 2005 17:44:11 GMT -5
uh jamie did. do you listen to xiu xiu? it is at least in one of the songs meanings.  yes, i am well aware that a good bit of xiu xiu songs have the theme of sexuality involved in them, i have been heavily obsessed for awhile now. but i was speaking about individual song subjects, not what is on the topic of intercourse, i also think a great deal more songs that have come from the xiu xiu index have more to do than just sex. it would be kind of sad if we circled around that subject forever and ever. |
|
Saiken
Go Away
rub me belly
Posts: 114
|
Post by Saiken on Aug 25, 2005 18:02:12 GMT -5
[...], the actual "meaning" of the song is individual to every listener[...] ...wasn't that one called meaning less?  Whenever a certain variable can be exchanged with any element of a given set, and is always staying true, it has no meaning at all. If that is the case, rewrite your songs jamie!   |
|
FloatingDowntheLiffey
Guest
|
Post by FloatingDowntheLiffey on Aug 25, 2005 20:27:50 GMT -5
ok, my example of a theme was probably off, but i wrote that this morning on my way to work, and i hadn't had my diet coke yet however, i do think you misunderstood my point... i'm not saying art that is intentionally left open for interpretation is necessarily a positive thing; i can't stand abstract expressionism either (except rothko... those giant orange squares are cool) what i was arguing is closer to the old "reader response theory", rejecting the "constructivism" of the moderns. yes, an artist (usually) has an intent in his/her artwork, and i would argue that jamie has very precise subjects/themes/etc. but due to the listener's personal experiences/knowledge/perceptions, the actual "meaning" of the song is individual to every listener. for example, due to a very painful recent break-up with a guy who treated me like shit, i have a very strong personal reaction to the song "sad redux-o-graph".. my understanding of that song is now closely linked to my experiences. now, you may have had very similar experiences, and our understanding of that song could be similar, but it's doubtful that you cringe on the same lines i do, or start tearing up on the same note i do... eventually, a song (or any artwork) takes on a personal meaning that is outside of the artist's control 1.) i dont think the fact that a work of art can suggest things that are personal makes the analysis of art (the attempt to discover what the artist's intent or theme is) moot. im reminded of one of my poetry classes in high school when, in response to the question of theme, students instead responded to "what does this poem mean to you?" thats kind of a sweet thing to do, but it has nothing to do with theme or analysis. one is artist-centered, the other audience-centered. 2.) i do very much like the abstract expressionists and take exception to the fact that anyone would believe rothko or nevelson didnt have an intent!!! 3.) very sorry to hear about your boyfriend--its such a fucking pain--im giving up boyfriends |
|
|
|
Post by dr. strangelove on Aug 25, 2005 23:30:58 GMT -5
1- ok, based on your final line, i believe that you're at least partially agreeing with me... i believe you said meaning is audience-centered, and theme/intent is artist-centered, which was where this discussion kind of began... discussing what it "means" when someone asks for "meaning"... ugg... semantics... being a literature major, i also highly value analysis, and i believe the artist's intent in central to any piece; to truly understand any work, i believe an understanding of the artist's life/perspectives is extremely important to get anywhere with any sort of analysis... but i also feel that at a certain point, the art takes a step beyond an artist's intent and through interpretation becomes something more... otherwise, a song and a political speech would ultimately have the same effect/value... it is art's ability to be transformed by the audience what makes art so important... in my opinion, a good artist makes an audience confront a theme/topic, and encourages further thought. if an artist does nothing but simply give us their opinions, they are doing nothing more than a politician or theologian... 2- i know that many of the abstract expressionists (and their followers) did have an intent, but i've never been able to take a lot of it seriously... i won't list names of people i particularly despise so as not to inspire your wrath i do greatly admire rothko's work, but then again, i know a bit more about him, and not being an art history major, that is an era that i admittedly quickly skimmed, as i was more interested in periods just before and just after... i meant it more as a joke 3- thanks.. he was an asshole, and my self-esteem became shit over the years, so it's a good thing i ended that mess |
|
FloatingDowntheLiffey
Guest
|
Post by FloatingDowntheLiffey on Aug 26, 2005 19:14:46 GMT -5
good to hear--dump the shithead! people are fucking dumb. (no offense, people who are dumb--and there are many of you!)
ps. my old art history teacher started up a conversation with a mopy old man in a bar once who turned out to be an aging mark rothko, pre-suicide!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Veck on Aug 27, 2005 4:29:51 GMT -5
[...], the actual "meaning" of the song is individual to every listener[...] ...wasn't that one called meaning less? Whenever a certain variable can be exchanged with any element of a given set, and is always staying true, it has no meaning at all. If that is the case, rewrite your songs jamie! haha I like the way you think despite disagreeing with you I like adhering myself to the idea of spontaneous prose/beatnik/modernist/blah blah (fuck specific movements) where feeling is portrayed over meaning, and that's the idea of the piece, where meaning is filtered to the point where the music/image/words create direct psychological impact without necessarily translating back into the original meaning, causing the responder to be taken aback and feel similar emotions to the composer without knowing exactly what motivated them. this is how I appreciate most things I experience If that's not understanding, well excuse me for not giving a fuck |
|
|
|
Post by rhcball succinctly on Aug 27, 2005 22:47:36 GMT -5
i admire all the different words and ideas, for sure, but from where i'm sittin', it still looks like one single burning question wrapped in a myriad of colored tissue papers. jamie, gay or not, yeah yeah. but it's a rhetorical question, it has no answer. but it's the root of everytihng here. go out on a busy street and look around--the world buzzes with the question, without even being aware of it. one has to wonder, tho, if i'm just making a big inflated mess of a jab at the once-a-month meerkat-types popping out from their dusty holes, to ask if jamie's gay. no matter how the depth of discussion may progress here, first and foremost this forum will serve as the landing pad for those sky-diving answer-seekers trying to settle their head-scratching after giving 'fabulous muscles' a few spins.
but hey, maybe it's the will to life, c/o schoepenhauer. we all want to know because we all want to mate with jamie. we can agree on that, can't we?
|
|
