groups

RussMartin and i were pming about this over the weekend, the catalyst being varied response to a work he posted on the CAP group titled: 'Poem':

Don't lie there
Legs splayed
Bared belly begging
Tongue lolling
Through cajoling grin.

And don't hound howl,
As though you'd treed
The ineffable,
Incessant,
Interminable.

And don't nose toss
an idle hand
behind your ears

And don't wag
And whimper and
(ooops) Pee.
"You're a good boy.
Yes you are."

No.

Raise hackles.
Lower head.
Quiver muzzle.
Flash wet teeth.
Catch eyes.
Hold them.

Don't just give
What should be earned

Now, you can just react emotionally to it, or see it as having deeper meaning. But at some point don't you have ask yourself 'who is speaking?Who is the persona/voice of the poem?' and as if not more importantly, 'To whom?', 'Who is the addressee of the message?' The answers if correctly deduced tell us more about the artists intent. But in mulling all this over i got to thinking about intent and meaning in communication in general.

Russ wrote (and you will see at end of paragraph i have his permission to quote him on this):

"When I was teaching in Honolulu, I was often at odds with the department chair. She was into Reader Response, while I thought literature should be looked at as a type of communication, that the reader had the responsibility to try to ascertain the writer's intent. Poem kind of backs her up though, in that you and those who saw it as a metaphorical comment on personal behavior may have come up with a more valuable existence for it. If you do decide to play with Poem in the Arts group, you may want to paste in this paragraph."

Russ's intent: Poet speaking to 'Poetry'.
My perception: Poet speaking to effusively praising audience.
Some others responses suggested they saw it as a way to comment how people some times behave to elicit the responses they want.

i had not consciously thought about it before, but one of the things i do ask myself is 'Who is speaking and to whom'. Because it can effect how the message is perceived to know that. i have a habit of seeing
things in 'layers', there are the denotations and the connotations of the words themselves, but also if emotion is evoked in me i may see something as straight forward as a season being the speaker, and an individual or people or nature being the addressee in an interesting poem Russ did call 'The Fall' view link as being a metaphor for a relationship but from the unique perspective of the supposed 'villain'. i'd like to get Russ's intent on record.

Anyway it occurred to me that what i perceive as the best art, whether written, visual, constructional (sculpture, architecture) is usually art that has 'layers' of meaning: Functional, aestetic, metaphoric. If i learn i did not 'get' the intended meaning of something, i feel i've been given a new lens to view it thru: The artist's. And as a poet, when it's clear someone has read something different into a poem of mine it makes me think about how i conveyed the message. It helps me be more clear. But i don't always want to 'beat' the reader about the head with MY meaning, sometimes i want to throw a notion out there and let people ride it where they will.

So, what are your thoughts? How much responsibility does the perceiver have? Can a dialogue about the gap between message transmitted and message received be productive? i tend to think so especially when those discussing are also poets, artists. But, what say you?

I believe that dialogue can be useful for both the artist and the recipient of that art. I think that since no matter what we do, our perceptions vary according to our experiences, it is in the conversation of those new ways of seeing art where we grow.

Sometimes the artist may offer up a piece of her/his own psyche in the work without even being conscious of it. I've had work critiqued to discover on occasion an underlying symbolic meaning that was fully intended in my subconscious being, but I was totally aware of sharing it in the work until it was seen by someone else. In that experience, my own awareness grew from the interaction.

Of course there is material out there that is not art. When a person is dishonest, creating perhaps from a desire to imitate for instance, or to offer a vision not their own, then the recipient of that piece of work will sense that it is not true, and that the work is not art. Again as a writer, if I try only to imitate another author without sharing my truth, it is but an imitation. Not that we cannot learn from imitating styles as we find our own, but that even in the act of imitation, our own story/painting/sculpture must be a true portrayal from the artist's perception. Paint by number or factory art isn't really art, but imitation.

The question of value was brought up. I suspect that would vary from person to person. You may communicate something that touches my soul. For me there is real value in the work, even if only a few appreciate it. I do not equate value and marketability.

I think I approach all written material as an actor. I don’t try to ascertain the author’s intent; instead, I put myself into the character of one who would speak those lines. To whom would I be speaking? And why use those specific words? And what point am I trying to convey?

In the case of Poem, I love that it is the poet's communication to his art-form. I might follow that abstract route, as Poet speaking to Poetry. On the other hand, I might use it as a monologue, actually speaking to a dog (real or imaginary). Toward the end, there would be a moment of recognition (on my part) that . . . as with most human behavior . . . we are not that far removed from the quadrupeds among us. I believe I could convey that moment of recognition to my audience.

I probably approach visual arts as an actor, as well, placing myself in the picture and imagining what the setting would feel like. For abstracts: Either I am intrigued by the geometry and drawn in (if you’ll pardon) by the colors, or I am not. For constructional arts: I explore textures and am fascinated by surprising or heartbreakingly graceful lines.

The same holds true for dance; I’ve seen performances in which a dancer forms an unexpected angle, making the entire routine a stand-out. Music can transport me. So much so that, in order to fully take in lyrics, I have to watch a piece performed. Movies and plays, I mainly view as an actor; if the acting is believable, I generally find the work enjoyable; if not, my involvement is jarred and I almost cannot watch.

Summarily, I’d say that, although my responses are very personal (in the sense of: what does this piece mean to me?), they’re not strictly emotional; I also draw connections and parallels between my experience of the particular art and what I’ve learned throughout my life, asking always, “How does this support (or negate) conclusions that I’ve reached?”

Regarding responsibility: Although both the viewer/reader and the artist can greatly benefit from an exchange of ideas, I don’t really consider it anyone’s responsibility. Rather, each viewer/reader should approach the work from their own perspective and glean from it what they can.

As to the artist’s responsibility to his/her audience: I leave that for the particular artist to determine.

As an actor, I feel that I must be true to the role (as interpreted by me, the director and . . . if available . . . the playwright), using all of myself toward that end. My goal is twofold: To hold the mirror up to human nature; and to stay in the moment, every moment, onstage. (I’m much more successful with the former than the latter . . . in-the-moment comes and goes.)

I also believe that, as artists, we should consider the impact we create. Not that everything must always be pretty. Sometimes we can have a deeply positive result from the impact of a negative example, allowing people to then say: This is not what I want to be.

Thank you both for thoughtful responses.

Labrys, i agree about value...if it is touches one other soul it has value.

MsTick, when i had 'oral interpretation' classes in college i tended to approach my 'performances' from a similar perspective: Who is the 'i' of this peice, who are they addressing and what are they trying to convey?
And i very much agree that we should consider the 'impact' of what we create.

Who defines what art means and what the value of it is?
I don't think "art" can be defined or assigned value in general terms. The definition lies in the heart/mind/soul of both the creator & the viewer. Art is the effort to use a medium to articulate an idea or emotion. An artist may create a piece of work for its own sake, or out of a personal need to express it. It's entirely possible that they have no desire to share it with others, & their work is more therapeutic than something meant to be consumed.

How much responsibility does the perceiver have?
I don't believe that the person who perceives an artist's work has any responsibility to correctly deduce the artist's intent, although a larger body of work might make it more clear than a single piece. Life experience determines perception, & people are like snowflakes; they may not have a particular frame of reference if they have no comparable experience. If an artist intends to express something specific, only they can achieve that. Even if an artist wishes to offer an explanation, the perceivers still may not understand it completely. When a piece of art is released, it stands alone; it must speak for itself to everyone who comes in contact with it. If the artist has a strong intent toward specific meaning, hopefully they'll have channeled the creative clarity to express it without ambivalence.

"Can a dialogue about the gap between message transmitted and message received be productive? i tend to think so especially when those discussing are also poets, artists."
If so, feywon, would such dialogue with other poets/artists then concern the technical aspects of a given discipline, in order to make the creator's meaning more clear to non-artistic viewers? It would seem that the intended audience would offer some extremely valuable insights about how a work is being perceived. Dialogue would have value to the artist only if they're interested in improving the clarity of their intent with future works. It would have value to the reader/viewer if they understand the artist's interpretation.

Who is speaking & who is being addressed...
So often this is elusive. A reader/viewer can come away with an idea or impression that has no connection whatsoever with the creator's intent. But the work has merit as long as the perceiver thinks or feels something by coming in contact with it, that they wouldn't have otherwise. As you said, if it touches one other person in some way I'd consider it successful.

*jmho, not being a "real" writer or poet myself.

We all bring ourselves to a work of art. I think it's 'interesting' to know the artist's intent...but it's near the bottom of the list of what pulls me...calls to me about art. I've heard it said (and liked it) that some pieces of art remind us of those times our hearts first opened. That's what pulls me..calls to me...about poetry..art. Does it touch me, open me, shift me, invite me on a ride where, at the end, I'm not the same person who entered the poem...the picture..etc. Clever conversations about meaning don't really cut it for me. I want to be touched. Of course some pieces require more 'work' than others...and that's o.k.....some people like different 'flowers' than other people. What if you read a piece that blew you away and inspired you to go out into your day doing kind acts and shifted your life in some way and then communicated your experience to the poet/artist/author and he/she said..no no no..you didn't get my work at all...it was a characture of itself...a parody of the human condition meant to show deep angst and the evil hopeless nature at the core of life and humanity...
etc......at some level it's 'interesting' to know the authors intention...but..well....you know....

The "perceiver" has to bring themselves to the experience, as much as the artist. I know that as I've grown older, I can appreciate things about a work that I couldn't fully "get" when I was younger. Even something like the music my parents liked - It's only now that I can understand the depth of emotion that the lyrics, the music can convey.

What is "art"? - Something that transcends words or brushstrokes, or technique. Something beyond artifice.

i agree, crindaguitar and also The older i get, the more open/non-judgemental I am towards art (and life), and the more things i have a positive response to. i think art is fluid, the maker of it puts it out, and each viewer/hearer/reader interacts with it and has their own unique experience, and the art is 're-created' in the viewer. The artist's intent, if known, can sway the viewer, but there is still an primary visceral response, which is individual.
i think for something to be "art" there has to be a sense of total committment to the piece, a wholehearted 'purity' of intent that transcends the physical of it. and the person that made it.