Question Art is about Surrender Discussion

Since we can't reply to the original post, please discuss here.

Yes, i have to agree with the writer, in that appreciating art means that you have to surrender yourself to the original vision that the artist had when they were creating the work.

I work mostly in music, as well as some physical art.

The work in music is ephemeral, as it's there when you are playing it, and then it'sd gone. (Please note i'm talking about live performance, not recorded, which is a very different art form.)

Unless you are playing your own compositions, it is always an interpretive art form, translating the music that someone else wrote, but playing it in your own way.

This makes for a very interesting dynamic, in that you can discuss/argue about the overall interpretation of a piece, and then do it again differently.

Indeed, it will be different almost every time, according to the mood of the people involved, as well as the audience reactions which will be included in the dynamic.

Live theatre is very similar.

Studying sculpture has a completely different flavour. I went to one exhibition at the Royal Academy in London, called Bronze. There were two original Cellini's!

One of them was a scale model of Perseus with Medusa's head, that was never made into the intended full-scale statue, until that exhibition, where they had commisioned a modern casting of the 16th century model. The full-scale version was 4 metres high.

It was then that i understood what Stewart Wieck wrote, when describing a sculptor looking at a Rodin, when he wrote "He then placed his hands on the doors and slowly moved them across the surface as if imagining it was suddenly forming under his fingertips. Or perhap he imagines what he would have done differently, Victoria mused, as that reaction was often a great or even good artist's reaction to the work of a master. They saw not so much the work, but how the work differed from and therefore defined their own."

The Cellini's were awe-inspiring.

Some of the other pieces were even more so. There was two pieces that were found in archeological sites, one was a figure of Ptah, that patron diety of Memphis, and the demi-god of craftsman, which was incredible to look at. The other was a figurine of Bast. Both of these were over 5000 years old!

Beautiful, inspiring work.

More work to do.

(Sorry for the ADHD-fueled tangent.)

To wind the conversation back to the stuff that's relevant to here, whenever the authors are publishing work here, whether it is Canon, or Fanfic, they are publishing THEIR version of the events in the stories, THEIR interpretation of the background, and THEIR versions of the character's, and the subsequent character development.

Yes, having the chance to chat with them via this website is great, but that's as far as it should go. As an audience we don't have any other rights, but to enjoy what they are producing.

If you as a reader don't like the way that a specific character is going, you are free to write your own fanfic, that describes how you personally feel that the character should have developed.

BUT, and this is an important but, the original authors do NOT have to listen to you. They are creating this stuff by, and for, themselves, and we are privileged that they are willing to share their work publicly with us, their readers.

This stands true for every art form, in every medium.

If you don't like it, you are perfectly able to spend years honing your craft, in the same way they have done, and produce your own work, in the same way as they have done.

(This is a topic that is kind of important to me, as occasionally i have had to deal with a horde of drunken football fans who didn't like the way i was playing their favourite song. Thankfully i manage to avoid that sort of gig these days... )

There was a quote from a conversation between Frank Herbert and David Lynch, where after watching the first edit of the film, Frank said to David, "You made an great film from the same story that i made a book of."

I have to bring up a point that came up in the old forums. What you recommended, Mister D, writing a fanfic with how YOU think a character should develop is extremely rude. Respectfully offering critique and ideas is good, but telling someone else how their vision is supposed to go is just wrong.

My 2 cents.

Wrayth

I'll be honest, I've felt this way about the fashion that fans have been responding ever since I read an article about the ending of Mass Effect 3. The fan response back then was TITANIC, and made waves all around. The article itself was about the writer who claimed that this was the way she intended to write it, how to present it, and in a fashion, it made sense to her to work it that way, and spoke to the message they were trying to convey. Yes, they tried to 'fix' it after, but the damage was done... And I'm not so sure 'fixing' it helped either. If nothing else, it might set a trend.

Yes, reading, no, I mean, enjoying any kind of art is a surrender. You're taken for the ride, the tracks have been set, and you can only follow them the way the artist has it set up. The only close exception I'd mention would be videogames, where the player has a chance to advance the story at their own pace, or the interactivity of choice, but even then, you're still following a script (No matter how many bugs you find).

But with any kind of art, the feelings of the fan is subjective. Everyone else will see the story their own ways, and that can change drastically by person to person. No one can say they picture the exact same thing as someone else when they experience art. Their point of view may change, or they may miss small parts they didn't get. I've had my share of little arguments when reviewing something. Not to forget that taste is relative.

So fans being angry at artists were probably always there. The feelings was always present in one way or another. And the ponder you look at the piece, the more chances you have that something doesn't ring well with people. It happens.

What changed though, is the internet, and the access to authors. It's great to communicate like this, and even better to be able to get in touch with someone who created something you admire. The flip side to that, is that you can also be a jerk to said person, and suffer no penalties for yourself, and there are some pretty mean jerks out there. Previously, getting in touch with the author probably required efforts, like finding numbers, or writing a letter if you can't find them face-to-face. It's not exactly easy, Now? It's a lot easier and faster.

I get the feeling it's same as with customer service: No one knows how rough it is to make art, unless you've actually done it. It might look easy, it might look simple, but it's a whole other thing to do it. And if you do, oooooohhhh boy, trying to please everyone will be near impossible.

Unless you try that? People don't understand... And some people can be DEMANDING. They tend to be the loudest there is, unfortunately. Been there, done that.

For the artists, it's usually best to keep your ground. It is your vision, after all. Yes, some criticism can be valid, but ultimately, you're the one in charge. If someone doesn't like it, they may just have to look somewhere else.

I just thing the term 'surrender' is a bit misused though. You haven't fought anything, you're not giving up anything... You are giving control over, and getting along for the ride, but there should be a better term for it.

Wrayth wrote: I have to bring up a point that came up in the old forums. What you recommended, Mister D, writing a fanfic with how YOU think a character should develop is extremely rude. Respectfully offering critique and ideas is good, but telling someone else how their vision is supposed to go is just wrong.

My 2 cents.

Wrayth

Sorry about this, i meant to add, that while each individual reader may have their own interpretation of how it should develope, the only real vote that counts comes from the original author, as it was their original inspiration that everyone else is building from.

Otherwise, how would you interpret the micro-scenes thread?

Maybe it's just the bias i have as a musician/occasional-composer, where i have heard some excellently played versions of songs by bands covering other peoples tracks, but if you want to hear it played how it was originally intended, you need to hear the original composer perform the piece.

This struck home to me, the only time i got to see Grappelli performing live.

The saying "the book was so much better than the picture" is an example of user perception. When you read a book, by necessity YOUR imagination is filling in background details that are simply impossible for any author to completely fill in. The interpretation of the book is personally yours. But when you watch the same thing in a film, you're seeing the director's and producer's interpretation, with the visual medium able to fill in vastly more detail than the book had. That can be good, or it can be bad. I prefer a book because it allows my imagination to get some exercise.

Now, having said that, the way a reader mentally (subconsciously) fills in details is personal to the reader an very probably NOT like the way the author envisioned the details. Let's make an example. "Outside, the storm raged, making Jen grateful that she had a backup generator, a warm fire, and a steaming mug of hot cocoa."

So what does that scene mean? I bet some think of thunderstorm. To some, perhaps a tropical storm or blizzard. Rain? Thunder and lightning? Is she sitting curled up on the sofa under a warm blanket reading? Daytime? Dim light? That short passage can - indeed should - evoke so many different mental images among different readers - and for a reader to criticize an author because the reader's mental interpretation is unsatisfying is totally unfair - and that's to say nothing of the story plot itself.

An artist (including an author) creates a work with a vision of what it means. It's up to the observer to interpret the work; a great artist creates a work that has less uncertainty in interpretation, but it's still a two-part experience.

I guess what I'm saying in my rambling way is I agree that the observer is not justified in criticizing the work based on the observer's interpretation (which includes plot). Instead, he or she should allow the artist's interpretation to come through and appreciate that an effort was made to inspire him or her.

Elrodw, I completely agree. It's true. There's no way that the creator can meet the expectations of the observer, even less every single observers out there.

"The book was better than the movie." is so true. I'd say it right away with Harry Potter and more recently for me, with Phoenix Wright and it's anime. The book requires the creator to give descriptions to form an image in the mind of the reader. Whatever the reader will do, will pick on their preferences, their personal ideal. On the movie, the image is made by the creator, rather than the watcher, and that may not always match. That's not to forget the time between reading a 300 page novel, to watching a movie for 2 hours. The amount of information given is vastly different. The comparison isn't exactly fair.

The topic of observer expectations can be a mile long though, and has multiple different factors, but the end result is the same.

So why people are angry at the writer at that point?

Wait, no, I get being angry. It happens all the time. If a story didn't affect you emotionally, it didn't do it's job. If you're upset, yeah, it's effective.

Why do people try to press their opinions on the writers? Why do they try? Entitlement? That the writer has to bend to the will of the fan? I don't think they can realize how much this can hurt or upset a writer at times.

Is this the way of the future though? Are creators now targets? That does worry me quite a bit.

Has it gotten to the point where we have to put a disclaimer on the internet: "If you don't like what you're watching, you have one option that's available to everyone: look somewhere else. This is the age of the internet, there's more than enough content to make people happy. Don't harass those who worked hard for it, it's not worth the time. If you think you can do better: go do something better." I'm quoting a streamer I watch on Twitch, and his experience, and I know he's got a bigger backbone than some people.

That Warren felt so close to the article though, I can only imagine what some of our writers here have gone through. It's not easy.

But for every person screaming in outrage, there's ten more willing to support you out here. They're not just as loud, that's all.

Warren wrote: We created the fan fiction section specifically to allow fans with "issues" a creative outlet for those ideas. We've made it clear that the fan fiction in almost all cases is NOT part of the universe Canon. I have to admit that on many occasions when a fan tells me "It should have gone this way..." or "I have an idea for you to write...." that i trot out one of my favorite statements, "Why don't you write that story." and I feel that gives the person a peek into the creative process the author goes through.

Throw in the whole shared universe with regular authors and shared characters takes it to a whole other level.

This!

Watching how the Whately Universe has developed and reading the discussions about the writing is fascinating.

It's the literary equivalent of a jam session.

I do feel that it's inaccurate to imply that this is a problem that has arisen with the internet. The internet, and the reader-creator contact it allows has exacerbated the problem of fan backlash, but angry letters from fans have existed for just as long as fans have. Most famously would probably be Doyle's inability to kill Sherlock Holmes, but you can find hate mail for pretty much any old and famous author if you try. It's just harder to toss in the fireplace now.

I like to define art as anything that meets any two (or more) of the three following criteria:

It is beautiful/enjoyable
It required skill to create
It provokes/guides meaning

By this definition (which is entirely personal, and can be used or disregarded as you see fit), entertainment is anything that meets the first criteria, which means it can easily be art, but isn't necessarily art, or a requirement of art.

Of course, this definition immediately runs into problems. Different people find different things beautiful and/or enjoyable. "Skilled creation" includes both the physical act of creation and the conception of the idea that became the art, which is rather difficult to quantify. And meaning is a joint creation of both the art and the audience, but audiences are more than happy to create meaning without any input from the art they are viewing.

Kristin, I do believe you do have part of the answer, at least, your definition about it, but I'll take a stab at it.

Every type of piece of media is able to deliver a message and entertainment. Some may be better suited to do it, to various degrees. but the potential is there.

The potential for entertainment is understandable. You can bring a lot of emotions through art in various ways, and that right there is a good way to do it. It's like watching a random action movie. You may have to turn down your brain a smidge to enjoy the explosions that shouldn't happen. Your goal is to please as many people as you can through that.

A message though, can be a bit trickier to implement. Yes, it does have meaning, and art is a good way to get your message across. It's incredibly potent, since anyone can just write a quote, and 'there's your message'. But with art, you don't just deliver a message, you deliver an experience along with it. The experience enriches the message, explains why it would fit. It's powerful.

And if you're able to make a powerful message quite entertaining at the same time, it's able to spread wide and far. It's probably one of the big rewards for an artist of any kind.

But the trick part about messages, is that it's complicated to pull off. Sometimes, the message gets lost in translation, or some parts are taken out of context, or sometimes, people flat out don't like what you're saying. If that's the case, then people might ask you to change it, and change your tune. Some might be good, to enhance it, others might just mangle the meaning to fit their own views.

It may come down to a judgement decision on the artist.

How much of your message are you willing to sacrifice to entertain more people?

As for Warren, I'd like to add in a little bit more.

Yes, the internet has made it a lot easier, but it also goes a little more beyond just an email, or an instant message. When you think of platforms like forums, message boards, Facebook, etc, you don't just get a single message, but a place public to see those opinion to the world. A soap box, of some sort that anyone can jump on. It's real easy. And with that, you can find people sharing your opinions on a lot of topics.

The trouble though, is that it's easy to be angry at something, and that has the unfortunate reaction of spreading like wildfire. An argument starts, parties on either sides to start screaming, and it never ends. Or worse, one person is angry, another comes in, and you have the virtual version of a mob. It's why they call it the flame wars, right? Burn zee witch?

There's two things I do want to point for this one, I believe.

It's a rule of the internet, but don't try to win an angry argument on the internet. It pretty much makes both parties look bad, and everybody loses. If the opponent doesn't want to listen, it doesn't matter how big your lettering is, there's no force on the net that will force them to agree.

And on the other part, if you get the time, and you have a favorite creator, take the time to write them a compliment. Take the time to explain why you like something and how you enjoy it. It will very likely make their day. It might even start a conversation, or maybe they'll see what good they've made. You'll be much more likely to be heard, and the creator will be that much more motivated to make more.

Nothing drains the life more out of a creator than to hear nothing but complains about what you worked on. Been there, done that.

I'm reminded of an interview with Wil Wheaton, I believe it was on some documentary about video games. I won't quote, but the idea he presented was in many ways playing a video game was an active audience form of entertainment and storytelling in that we were in some level "living" the story by taking part in it, versus a more passive form of storytelling of writing or movies.

In playing a video game, at some level we are actively controlling the character in question (even if some of the events are pre-planned). In reading or watching a film though, we are a passive audience (I think this might be the paraphrase of surrender that some were looking for). We do not actively take part in the shaping or molding of events. We cannot dictate how the protagonist handles a challenge or with what weapon or style they defeat their foes.

It's almost as if people are trying to be an active audience in a passive audience form of entertainment because we've become spoiled as a culture. We've grown used to being able to be an active agent in things; phone in your vote on who advances on Idol/The Voice/etc, decide which characters form up your party, do you head left or right upon entering the mansion, etc.

I'm not sure how this might address any of the real questions here or poses any solutions, but it was an observation I found fitting after reading the article paraphrase and having watched the documentary about the history of video games.

EDIT: I think the other part with ME3 is that we (the players as a whole) had been billed a game where our choices mattered and changed the game world and outcomes. In ME1&2 this was true; areas existed or didn't, characters lived or died based on our choices and they carried through the series. ME3 had essentially the same ending with three various colored laser beams There was some evidence as to the fate of the main character in the original ending, but ultimately the players as a whole felt let down because the description on the back of the box of the whole series (your choices mattered, you determined the fate of the galaxy, etc) didn't match the conclusion of same cut scene/different lasers.

Mmmnnn. That is quite a lot of insight, I'll admit. You don't always see it that way. Very interesting, and quite a bit of good points.

I can't agree with classifying every media genres as being solely art or entertainment, there should be a bit of both in each other, I imagine, but the stereotype is there. It's hard to ignore.

If I had to imagine a similar breach of contract for entertainment... I'm thinking back on Colonial Marines, how a trailer made a spectacular show, but the actual game was something completely different than what was advertised. It's not an example of art vs entertainment, but people were asking for refunds, and calling for betrayal in droves. If I had to call for other cases in movies where fans might feel betrayed by the filmmakers, I'd be quick to point at Uwe Boll's takes on game movies, and the Transformers movies. Both cases tend to take a franchise, use the name for publicity, but they have no need to follow the lore of it, they can do what they want.

Why doesn't the industries get about targeting their audiences? In my personal opinion? As the way the system is set up right now? They don't have to.

That contract system, were a player/watcher feels like there's a breach of trust? Most of the time, those higher ups don't feel any consequences of it. Once you paid for your piece of media, usually, as far as the publishers are concerned, the contract is closed. If you return the movie/game, they might not even get the feel of that, it's the middleman feeling the burn. It might be part of why you see some games being sold 'incomplete', or untested, filled with bugs. They've already taken the money. Bare support is much cheaper than labor for bug testing. If your franchise is big enough, you can get away with it.

For an industry, success is measured in profits, and if they can cut corners, they sure will. At this point, profits/success is counted on how well you sell the game, not the content itself.

It's a sad state, I'll admit... Though this whole post is probably filled more with my opinion, and perspective than facts... And I may have gone of tracks. Woops.

Yum! Chewy conversations. One of the reasons that i like hanging out here.

One of the main criteria that i use to differentiate between "entertainment" and "art", is that of "passiveness" versus "active engagement."

(Like any binary model that's used to describe an analogue system, it will have more or less utility, as well as a wide range of exceptions, but it holds for most cases.)

It's down to the expectations of the audience, as to whether they will love it or hate it. Anyone who is expecting to be passively entertained, and finds themselves having to be actively engaged in the performance will be sorely disappointed. It's why i hate doing wallpaper-music gigs.

Yes, it can be a way of making a living that supports a lot of people who are practising their craft, but it's not great art, as it's not the sort of situation where great art is required.

There was one electric guitarist i met 26 years ago in Dublin. He was a skilled musician, but when he was out busking near one shopping centre, the only tune he would ever play was "The House of The Rising Sun." It was all he needed, and he was making a good living from playing the same song, hour-after-hour, day-in, day-out, providing a familiar musical background noise to the shopping experience of the customers.

He was good to jam with outside of that situation, and he had a wide and varied range, but that was his bread-and-butter gig. If he had tried to play anything else, he would have made less money.

From another point-of-view, in Neal Stephenson's "The Diamond Age", he described a situation where VR and sensory systems had become so widespread through the use of nano-tech, that many of the audience members were so used to being " 'ractors" ( Interactive Actors), that when they were presented with live theatre performances, the acting troupe had to have bouncers to stop audience members trying to take part in the show. (Chewy book. Worth reading.)

Uwe Boll is an interesting case. His primary market isn't the fans of the game series that he tries to adapt to a film format. His primary audience are the people who are funding the films. He has made an extremely good living making films that are funded by the tax breaks that are offered to investors in the German film industry. He produces and directs films that fit well with the standard formula's that are required by the German version of the Hollywood.

Because of the tax-breaks, his investors make more money from the tax-breaks if the film bombs at the box-office, than they would if the films were successful, which is why his films are invariably a bit hit-or-miss.

My heart fell when i heard he was making a version of "Alone In The Dark" as i knew how bad it was going to be.

"Alone In The Dark" was a third person shooter game, similar to "Resident Evil", where the main characters were being hunted by monsters made from shadow. While the monsters could be shot with bullets, you could do more damage to them with a light source. If you were playing the Hard levels, all you started out with was a torch. Most of the tension in the game came from the lighting effects, and the constant search for batteries.

I could have imagined a film where there was great use of lighting effects, and things-lurking-in-the-shadows, giving wonderful chiaroscuro effects, with hints of film-noir, and references to Dr. Mabuse/Nosferatu/The Maltese Falcon, and subtle ethereal soundtracks, but no.

Uwe Boll decided to use SWAT teams that were armed with "photonic" bullets...

Cue standard Hollywood-Formula military-team buddy-movie.

It went straight to bargain-bin, but his investors got the tax-breaks that they were after, so they were happy with their flirtation with the film industry.

Again, barely-watchable entertainment, but not great art.

This system of having to please patrons has been a problem for creative artists for centuries. Look at Michelangelo's arguments with Pope Julius II when painting the Sistine chapel. Or Cellini's arguments with Francis I, who was invariably late in paying the bills.

It also kind of puts the current level of trolling-by-entitled-fans into perspective. When a patron has the power to lay siege to your home city, with legions of pikemen, supported by cannon, it becomes a little more difficult to disagree with them...

I have seen the results of how people who should not be involved in a persons vision destroy a product. We of course have seen the results in the movies. The 'Planet of the Apes' moves. The industry back then saw a cash cow and whipped it to death. Stories were created but budgets were cut each and every time from the first until the last one was just a near jumbled mess of disbelief. Then came the TV show, which honestly wasn't that bad in the beginning, but of course you know what happens later.

Another was a Disney cartoon 'The Black Cauldron'. It had been in development for years due to the nature of the books and the writers and artists were trying to sort through them. At that time a new director was brought in who had only been involved with movies and had no experience with storyboarding and such. Well he went in, made cuts to the film taking out items that brought some sense to the story and dumbed down other aspects as he wanted it for the younger audiences also.

Needless to say the movie bombed. It was hard to follow and did not make much sense at the time. It cost a few animators their jobs as well.

Writers write for various reasons. Some allow their readers to provide input. Piers Anthony is a good example as he would use the puns that many readers would send in as appropriate.

I could not envision Sir Isaac Asimov, or Hemingway to allow their readers to influence them on how their stories should be told.

But I would think its also up to the readers to understand its not their story that their reading but someone else's. So when they disagree with it I do feel obligated to say that a: Write their own story but not in that setting as they would be infringing on someones idea or b: stop reading it as they would not have any real sayso on the aftermath anyway.

I do take suggestions seriously unless they ask me to put in such and such as this becomes not my story but their fantasy. If it is just gratuitous for effect and brings nothing to the story then it shouldn't really be there.

Some writers set themselves up for later writing by adding parts that don't make much sense until later in another story and that is fine by me.

What I fail to understand or like is when someone takes the works of other writers and tries to mess them all into one universe. I've seen it done and it makes me think why? Its not their work to do so. If its an open universe and you can contribute to it I see no reason to involve the works from other universes arbitrarily.

I love to immerse myself in others works if I can. If I can't then it may be a failing on my part or the writers. If the writer didn't truly engage my imagination than I find I'm just reading words strung together. It may make light reading but its not something I'll continue if they continue on. I leave it up to the writer to entertain me and not the other way around.