Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Typical_Humanoid t1_ja4s0r9 wrote

Reply to comment by Sks44 in The movie “A Nightmare before Christmas” is about cultural appropriation by newtoIT-

Why does their opinion take precedence just because they created it? Fiction doesn't belong to one person the way an entire culture's creations belong to that culture. Fiction is meant to be for the consumer's enjoyment, and if that enjoyment involves interpreting things the creator didn't explicitly mention....isn't that what art is all about?

People after all unconsciously incorporate tons of themes into their own work they're unaware of. As long as they can be backed up this is just more interesting to do than throwing up one's hands and saying, oof, tough luck, author says blue curtains are just blue and can't represent sadness, your interpretation is invalid. B o r i n g.

−2

Sks44 t1_ja4sx8w wrote

“Why does their opinion take precedence just because they created it? “

Because they created it. If they create the characters and the storyline, they know both and can speak of meaning and intention. Denying that is an attempt to assert power and control over something you don’t deserve power or control over.

“Death of the Author” is the ultimate appropriation of the creative by the non-creative. It’s baby boomer bullshit.

4

DefinitelyNotALeak t1_ja4ufhv wrote

Do you think intention is all there is to meaning? That doesn't seem to be true. If i write something which generally gets interpreted a certain way but i am unaware of it (some slang or whatever), then i might not have intended the meaning, but it still exists.
In the same way a piece of art can have meaning which is outside of the author's intent.

3

Sks44 t1_ja4vi2u wrote

“Do you think intention is all there is to meaning?”

I believe creative intent is the real thing and everything else brought to the table takes secondary position. Asserting that applied “meaning”, which is interchangeable depending on a myriad of things, takes precedence is to passively assert control over creative works. Which is bullshit.

−1

DefinitelyNotALeak t1_ja4yxrk wrote

I am not sure there has to be precedence per se (though that depends on context too). I tend to think that the work speaks for itself, and any rational person can look at the text (and potentially subtext) and derive the intended meaning from it, but also possibly add additional meaning which the work itself gives room for (my example was to showcases one reason why additional meaning can exist).
In my example i'd definitely go as far and say that the meaning of said slang takes a certain level of precedence over the intent, it doesn't matter if i didn't know about it, the meaning is established already.
Would you disagree with that?

3

Typical_Humanoid t1_ja4tq9x wrote

I guarantee you interpreted something into a story the author didn't think of themselves or outright disagrees with (Maybe they just didn't express this publicly if you're in the habit of checking). If not, you have no sense of imagination whatsoever.

Plenty of creatives have said once their work is out into the world, it no longer belongs to them. I enjoy writing and if I ever publish anything I'd feel the same. Writers who don't feel this way are selfish control freaks and have no business sharing their art with the world if their own interpretations are so much better and more interesting than the consumer's.

0

Sks44 t1_ja4uiyz wrote

“I guarantee you interpreted something into a story the author didn’t think of themselves or outright disagrees with (“

Sure. And if I read the author say that the interpretation was incorrect, I’d abandon it because that’s what you do when you acquire new knowledge that makes your previous position obsolete.

If the author says nothing, for example Tarantino in the briefcase in Pulp Fiction, they want the reader/viewer to speculate.

“Writers who don’t feel this way are selfish control freaks and have no business sharing their art with the world if their own interpretations are so much better and more interesting than the consumer’s.”

You are calling someone a control freak for not allowing others to control their work. Pot/kettle and all that.

So, I assume you are a proponent of things like changing Ronald Dahl’s books, painting leaves on naked people in paintings, etc… because once the artist is done, fuck ‘em right? If you personally like something, it belongs to you. Like Annie Wilkes in Misery, the story belongs to you.

2

Typical_Humanoid t1_ja4vjwp wrote

Ugh. To me this is profoundly limiting and I'd be ashamed if as a creative I hampered people's imaginations and value they derive from my work just because my fragile ego demands it.

> So, I assume you are a proponent of things like changing Ronald Dahl’s books, painting leaves on naked people in paintings, etc… because once the artist is done, fuck ‘em right?

I find it abhorrent thank you very much. Censorship has nothing to do with the theory. You're out of line. I actually like knowing what the author thinks! I just don't take it as gospel.

2

Sks44 t1_ja4wnrk wrote

“To me this is profoundly limiting and I’d be ashamed if as a creative I hampered people’s imaginations and value they derive from my work just because my fragile ego demands it.”

Why does someone else’s imagination have power over another’s work? That work has been produced and established. And you believe, out of some idea of righteous subservience, that the creator should have no say once the statue is struck from the marble? It wasn’t a collaborative effort.

The artist created something. The artist knows what went into the work and why the curves and lines interact the way they do. To say that they have no say once the final stroke is struck is to disenfranchise them. “Death of the Author” is a theory that assets control over the creative by the non-creative. It says the consumer should have more say than the creator because the consumer consumes. I think a big reason so much storytelling sucks these days is because of academia pushing bullshit like “Death of the Author”.

“ Censorship has nothing to do with the theory. “

I don’t know how to break it to you but you are arguing from the censors position. A censor will say that they have the right to change and interpret a work as they see fit because the government/business gives them that power. You are just arguing from the position of a “fan” that wants the same power for different reasons.

2

Typical_Humanoid t1_ja4y3qv wrote

Suffice it to say interpretations/opinions don't impede someone's original vision or tamper with it, they exist independently of it. As art is not an objective field like science there's no "right" answer and thus the harm that's put out into the world when someone takes a Death of the Author stance is nil as I see it. And I don't think the theory does say the consumer has MORE say. Equal say more like. I wouldn't believe in it otherwise.

It's not the same as censorship because it's not altering anything whatsoever.

1

Sks44 t1_ja4zt5y wrote

“It’s not the same as censorship because it’s not altering anything whatsoever.”

Sure it is. Let’s say a person writes a story. The writer dies. Academia and such say the story is about X. People are taught that the story is about X. The author’s papers and such show the story isn’t about X at all. But Academia and people taught the story is about X aren’t going to stop. They will continue pushing that the story is about X. The “meaning” is now that the story is about X.

Tolkien said, multiple times, that he thinks allegory is bullshit. That hasn’t stopped people from reading all sorts of shit into his works and trying to paint him as things like racist because of it.

“Suffice it to say interpretations/opinions don’t impede someone’s original vision or tamper with it, they exist independently of it. “

I have no problem with that position. My issue is when people attempt to assert control over a work and think their position should overrule the position of the creator.

2

Typical_Humanoid t1_ja51kx9 wrote

We're talking about slightly different things is the problem I think.

I don't think academia gets to say what something is about either, that's just as bad if not worse. I believe them encouraging a belief in Death of the Author merely serves the end of people not believing something just because one person said it was the case, even as the creator, if they have evidence there's more to it than what they'd said. And if anything I found my high school classes had wanted you to take the author's word for it more than not, anyway. I'm not convinced this is just how the world of academics universally thinks.

To be 100% clear: I think it's very important to know what the author had actually intended. I don't think it's important to believe them over what your gut says. That's literally it. I know we still disagree fundamentally but I don't think this means what you think I think it means.

1

NoHandBananaNo t1_ja56bzh wrote

Im with you on this but youre not gonna change that guys mind.

People who are attached to authorial intent are usually that way because they crave the idea of access to a central truth.

1

Typical_Humanoid t1_ja5758c wrote

The thing is, I do get the impulse to think so.

I used to think adaptations would invariably be better the more they listened to the author but I realized the more movies I watched the ways movies are different from books A, exist, and B, aren't lesser. And authors don't always know these things and think everything they did can and will translate and will unreasonably hate the movies if they don't. I do still think they should have a say, just not the say, which informs my confidence in Death of the Author as a concept as well.

2

DefinitelyNotALeak t1_ja4u67l wrote

> Fiction doesn't belong to one person the way an entire culture's creations belong to that culture

I don't think culture belongs to anyone either. Culture is just shared behavior and even within a cultural group there will be differences based on region, etc.
With that being said, i agree with your idea regarding the death of the author anyway, i just do not agree with cultural appropriation very much as a concept (though i found op's read interesting anyway)

1

Typical_Humanoid t1_ja4uuax wrote

I'd feel disrespectful if I wore a kimono and got it into my head it had any greater meaning to me than just wearing one. I don't agree you must be apart of the culture originally to partake, it will just never mean the same thing to you. That's what I mean by this.

2

DefinitelyNotALeak t1_ja4vwuh wrote

I just don't think that 'cultural appropriation' is a useful concept per se. You talk about ownership, and people generally do, but i find that notion absurd. Some cultural ideas and behaviors come from certain people, but there is no ownership there. They have their meaning, and i honestly wish that they can keep it intact if they so desire (that is the biggest problem with the commodification of everything in a global consumerist society, criticism on that angle i can somewhat understand if it becomes too extreme), but the idea that wearing a kimono is disrespectful in itself if one doesn't take the time to 'appreciate' the culture it came from, that's inane to me.
Culture is always fluid and in exchange the moment two different 'cultures' interact in some way or form. People like some aspects, they adopt it, fuse it, do whatever. That's how it always was and it's how it always will be.

2

Typical_Humanoid t1_ja4x90p wrote

I do like the idea, but unlike my belief in Death of the Author, I think the culture itself gets the final say. If more people become lax on "outsiders" taking their own meaning that does or doesn't align with their own, that would be pretty wonderful. But it's not the consensus at this time and I understand why.

Thought-provoking reply though.

2

DefinitelyNotALeak t1_ja4zkam wrote

I just wonder why people think that tbh, why has the 'culture' (who is that 'culture' to begin with? It's definitely not a monolith) the final say?
They didn't even create it, most people just adopt what their environment teaches them.
The thing is, there are many complexities to this which we probably don't wanna go into now, i can see certain aspects of it (say a dominant 'group' taking something from a less 'dominant' one and potentially monetizing it in ways the minority could not; but that speaks to my commodification angle too), but imo a lot of the talk about CA is a little silly these days too. Idk.
I agree though, it would be wonderful if it was less of an issue, i guess that is our common hope :D

2

Typical_Humanoid t1_ja50heo wrote

I think it's all traceable to the borrowers often being treated as having outdone what the originators ever did, because they're "unique" or some similar designation, which just spits in the face of people who have likely been less advantaged than the borrower's culture so it's just kicking people while they're down or who were down historically.

Things like CA would matter much less in a world without prejudice or unfair treatment based on race, religion, etc, but seeing as it does exist, I think it being seen as a no-no makes sense.

2

DefinitelyNotALeak t1_ja51tid wrote

Sure, but not every instance is the same. If there is some white girl wanting to wear a kimono because she thinks it is beautiful, where is the harm? I don't really see it.
If there is some white celebrity who thinks they really should wear cornrows for their hip hop music video, then it becomes a little more interesting.
I tend to think in general there needs to be real harm being done, now the problem ofc arises when we think that someone being offended is already enough, which i generally do not agree with (i think it can be a good reason, but mostly when it correlates with other harm).
In any case, i think this is a highly nuanced topic and a lot depends on the specific case imo, which doesn't really seem to be the general opinion on it though, it feels more dogmatic than that and supposes some form of 'ownership' i just cannot agree with.

Sorry for this tangent, it was just one small part of your comment haha.

2

Typical_Humanoid t1_ja534ba wrote

I appreciate that first bit because I very much fall into that camp lol, but I never would because I don't want to step on any toes. Even if I don't think anyone's saying I can't, I just would fold in on myself nevertheless if it hurt someone in ways people borrowing something from my culture would never hurt me.

I think making it black and white is just easier because making exceptions for this and that means deciding what is or isn't okay will take over people's lives more than it already does when it's already pretty black and white as it is. Like the cornrows example may be more egregious because the tensions that exist across those communities are more extant than anything between white girls and Japanese girls lol (We've buried the hatchet since WWII I think it's safe to say), but isn't it just easier to say, just avoid as much as you possibly can? I think most feel it is on both sides, even if one side remains in longing to still adopt neat parts of other cultures secretly.

2

DefinitelyNotALeak t1_ja54vrq wrote

That wasn't on purpose :D I mean, i think having personal doubt there is totally fine, though imo it speaks to the current climate mostly, i am just wondering if it should be like it is i guess.

Black and white is always easier, but i am not a fan of binary thinking or dogmatism, i think nuance is ultimately a lot more healthy. Power differences, unequality, all the things we'd ideally would not like to have in our world are important to keep in mind, but i also think we overcorrect a little much here and there at times, and for something like cultural ideas i find that to be the case too. The difference between appropriation and appreciation (these are the two ideas broadly speaking right) can be rather slim, and as i said before, i think fundamentally we exchange culture all the time anyway, gatekeeping it too much seems just not that useful to me.
There are exceptions and reasons to do so at times, but as i said, i think this has to be linked to harm (for example if people's 'appropriation' leads to clichés which harm the initial group).
I appreciate the conversation though, thanks for the little exchange here haha. (gonna have to emphasize once more, i agree with your death of the author idea for sure).

2

Typical_Humanoid t1_ja57uj6 wrote

I enjoyed it too and being an idealist I responded well to your ideas, I just don't want to force how I agree things should be with what people perceive is the fairer course. I notice something like overcorrection in society constantly though....I may be a self-proclaimed feminist but this has people thinking I have opinions I don't have about how we should repair ties with each other.

Take care. :D

2