besleybean wrote:

Oh, so why does anybody ever bother creating any work at all?

I guess that the authors count with it that their work can be miscomprehended or even dismissed by public. They do it anyway because they feel that they have this creative pull inside themselves which they cannot realise in any other way.

@ Schmiezi Nobody has ever argued with the latter,
But our interpretation does not equal the writer's.

Last edited by besleybean (January 4, 2015 6:52 pm)

silverblaze wrote:

But in all three examples, the artist failed to accomplish something and that was noticed by the audience. The piece of art didn't suddenly become parody and tongue in cheek, just because it failed to be serious. So the intention of the author was taken into account. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the idea that the intention of the author isn't taken into account and that instead, the interpretation of the audience takes precedence. 

It's about intention, not about execution. 

In the case of the examples, it might have been clever from the author's pov, to pretend that that was what they were going for all along. Then, the 'anything goes' attitude comes in quite handy indeed. 

Schmiezi: what did you mean about literature studies? How does it work?
 

Hm, imagine me as a moviemaker. I would make a movie about Joan D´Arc, who would do nothing in all movie, but sit in one room, smoke pot and kill cockroaches with her pantaloon. I´ll then say that my work has a serious message about feminism and anyone who doesn´t see it that way just didn´t get it. 

Whose interpretation would you buy? Mine or the interpretation you made for yourself after you saw the movie (but which doesn´t match mine) - that the movie was about anarchy, about boredom, about pointlessness of life, or that it was a joke, was artificially artsy only to get some awards on art festivals, etc.? When actually everything could be true (and I could be pulling your leg in between)?

But the subject of this thread is if we can believe Moffat or not. Therefore the discussion about artistic intention and interpretation is quite on topic if you ask me. 

silverblaze wrote:

Schmiezi: what did you mean about literature studies? How does it work?
 

At university, I have basically learned that literature, like all kinds of art, can always be interpreted in many ways, not only the way the artist says. Because an artist is "only" a human being with social background, hidden agendas, subconsciousness and / or a view on his work that changes over the years.
 

besleybean wrote:

Yes, but we KNOW what the Sherlock team's  interrpretation and intention are,...no mystery there.

Schmiezi wrote:

Harriet wrote:

Copy and paste:

- We were told the show wasn’t going to go into Mycroft and Sherlock’s childhood
~ Lo and behold in S3 not only do we meet their parents, we get a glimpse as to what Sherlock was like as a child, as well as his childhood pet

- We were told the writers weren’t going to touch on the drugs bit any more than the tiny bit they did in A Scandal in Belgravia
~ Come His Last Vow, we see Sherlock in a drug den, and learn from Molly that he wasn’t clean (which was obvious given the drug den but w/e)

- We were told Mary wasn’t going to come inbetween John and Sherlock or be an adversary in any way
~ She became snippy at John over Sherlock, then ended up shooting and (albeit temporarily) killing Sherlock in His Last Vow

- We were told that Moriarty was definitely dead, and the writers even joked about it at Comic-Con 2013
~ “DID YOU MISS ME?!”

- We were told throughout 2013 that there was no Christmas special, that the whole thing was a rumor.
~ At the start of December 2013, we found out there was a special S3 prequel that aired for us - Many Happy Returns

- Something not linked to Sherlock but equally as important - in 2013 Moffat himself deliberately caused a fake controversy surrounding the Doctor Who 50th anniversary special, saying that none of the classic doctors were going to be remembered in any way, shape, or form, which wasn’t the case. Moffat is one of the creators and writers of Sherlock, so where does that leave us?

- ETA - Moffat and Gatiss both have said contradictory things about the show (for example, about the nature of Sherlock’s interest with Irene) and Moffat also had everyone believing that he actually would reveal the Doctor’s actual name in The Name of the Doctor, which also turned out to be false.

Those. And BTW:

nakahara wrote:

Yes, we fans are stupid - why are we doubting such a truthful people?

“Anything is possible. 

But we do our best to surprise you with a combination of lies and deceit. 

So, we’re never going to tell you what we’re going to do.”
— 
Steven Moffat, when asked about upcoming stories in S4 and S5.
 
XXXXX
 
“QUESTION: What is your opinion (if any) on Sherlock’s sexuality? Does it matter, or is it irrelevant to you as writers? 

GATISS/MOFFAT:Sherlock lives in his brain — everything else is transport. 

Unless we’re lying. 

Again.”
—  
Mark Gatiss and Steven Moffat
 
XXXXX 
 
“INTERVIEWER: So what did you say to Steven and Mark after you read the [Mary] twist? 

ABBINGTON: I texted them, 'You bastards.' It was brilliant. I was so happy. 

INTERVIEWER: I feel like Steven lives for people saying, ‘You bastard’ to him in that way. 

ABBINGTON: He does. He loves that. That’s why he brought Moriarty back after he said in interviews, 'Moriarty’s dead, okay? He’s dead.' 

And here’s Moriarty in the finale saying, 'I’m back. Did you miss me?'”
— 
Amanda Abbington, after the first airing of His Last Vow.
 
 

 

Schmiezi wrote:

silverblaze wrote:

Schmiezi: what did you mean about literature studies? How does it work?
 

At university, I have basically learned that literature, like all kinds of art, can always be interpreted in many ways, not only the way the artist says. Because an artist is "only" a human being with social background, hidden agendas, subconsciousness and / or a view on his work that changes over the years.
 

Yes, and sometimes, when you read works written tens or hundreds of years ago, even when the intention of the writer is known, you can discover new themes or messages that strike you as new or modern althrough that couldn´t be an intention of the author (for example, "Story of Prince Genji" written by Murasaki Shikibu in the year 990 feels like a modern psychological novel). This reading is not invalid - it just shows that the work of art has the power to invoke even the messages not present in it in time of its creation.

nakahara wrote:

Hm, imagine me as a moviemaker. I would make a movie about Joan D´Arc, who would do nothing in all movie, but sit in one room, smoke pot and kill cockroaches with her pantaloon. I´ll then say that my work has a serious message about feminism and anyone who doesn´t see it that way just didn´t get it. 

Whose interpretation would you buy? Mine or the interpretation you made for yourself after you saw the movie (but which doesn´t match mine) - that the movie was about anarchy, about boredom, about pointlessness of life, or that it was a joke, was artificially artsy only to get some awards on art festivals, etc.? When actually everything could be true (and I could be pulling your leg in between)?

Oh, I love that example! Reminds me of quite a few pieces of art I've seen.

But how would I respond? If the writer claims that it's about feminism, I would probably see it as a failed attempt at feminism. If the writer claims it as a joke, I might see it as a good or a bad joke. If the writer claims it's about anarchy, I'll look whether I can discover any anarchy. I would also say that it's a rubbish Joan of Arc, cigarettes didn't even exist in her time. What I won't do is, when the author says it's about feminism, I won't say, 'no, actually it's about pandas on sticks'. 
 

silverblaze wrote:

nakahara wrote:

Hm, imagine me as a moviemaker. I would make a movie about Joan D´Arc, who would do nothing in all movie, but sit in one room, smoke pot and kill cockroaches with her pantaloon. I´ll then say that my work has a serious message about feminism and anyone who doesn´t see it that way just didn´t get it. 

Whose interpretation would you buy? Mine or the interpretation you made for yourself after you saw the movie (but which doesn´t match mine) - that the movie was about anarchy, about boredom, about pointlessness of life, or that it was a joke, was artificially artsy only to get some awards on art festivals, etc.? When actually everything could be true (and I could be pulling your leg in between)?

Oh, I love that example! Reminds me of quite a few pieces of art I've seen.

But how would I respond? If the writer claims that it's about feminism, I would probably see it as a failed attempt at feminism. If the writer claims it as a joke, I might see it as a good or a bad joke. If the writer claims it's about anarchy, I'll look whether I can discover any anarchy. I would also say that it's a rubbish Joan of Arc, cigarettes didn't even exist in her time. What I won't do is, when the author says it's about feminism, I won't say, 'no, actually it's about pandas on sticks'. 
 

And that´s what I was trying to point out. Thank you.

Also, if you thought that the movie was about pointlessness of life, you probably wouldn´t "correct" your reading of the movie so that it matches my claim that the movie was about feminism? Or would you?
 

Vhanja wrote:

nakahara wrote:

But if you make your work ambiguous so that it can be read as a Lone Wolf-story, a reptile alien story, a communist story, a captialist story etc. and at the same time you would not include enough scenes proving that the story is actually about being bullied, your true interpretation would not hold even if you say so, because the people wouldn´t see it in a finished story. 

If you want your one interpretation to hold, be more sincere and don´t try to be too artsy if you don´t know how to properly do it so that your message would be conveyed.
 

Yes, that is a point. But when a story is then made so ambigious that both A and B are valid interpretations, and the writer then goes out and states: "A is the correct interpretation", then you have your answer.
 

If I only saw B on-screen, I would probably still consider it B and a failed attempt at portraying A.