> You missed the point that some of Dali's work is not actually
> Dali's work. He signed blank sheets of paper freely and
> those were often used by others to impersonate Dali's work.
> In fact, he said something to the effect that one "Dali"
> print was nice but it wasn't his because he didn't make any
> money off of that particuliar forgery. If there was an
> artist who didn't always know the meaning of all of "his
> works", it would be the one who permitted others to use his
> signature on their works for purpose of profit.
You are missing my point. A piece of paper with Dali's signature on it, upon which someone has added a drawing is not and can never be a Dali. So you have to exclude such drawings from Dali's collection of art. A Dali painting (one produced by Dali himself) are the only Dali paintings I am talking about. When you obfuscate the discussion by including non relevant drawings then you are missing Dali's point & my point.
The meaning of an artist work of art be it a poem a play or a painting is not dependent upon the writer or painter. It cannot be. To suggest it would demeans the art itself. I'll try to create an analogy.
An 18th century white anglo saxon protestant male writing on his plantation in America's deep south. Decides to write about the lot of his black workers. He does so because he believes (by that I mean his own personal belief system) that his black workers have got what they deserved. He believes the colour of their skin is inferior to his white blend. He is a racist.
Now he has also got keen powers of observations and has noted the richness of the black culture. However, when he depicts this richness in his novel he sees it as alien and abhorrent. His own personal feeling for the what he sees in the community of his black workers.
Similarly, his protestant religion has made him fear his sexuality. He believes that it should be suppressed and hid. He despises overt forms of sexual behaviour & especially a woman openly displaying her form. Now the black community do not have such sexual hangups; woman display their form & men allow it without a second thought. So he (the writer) is a sexual prude. But will still use his powers of observation to describe the black community's behaviour.
So while the writer's meaning is to provide justification for white man's racism towards the black community & to shine anglo saxon sexual prudishness on the black community the end result of his work are something very different.
The black community is seen as vibrant, surviving & flourishing despite their circumstance. Their is no sexual perversion in their community. Their community is in fact a utopia. This the white anglo saxon depicts thinking to illuminate the degradation he perceives in the black community. However, as time marches on and enlighhtenment enters our (the readers) consciousness we see & understand a meaning in the text very different from the original meaning of the writer.
We see racism in its overt forms, we see mans cruelty to man. We see protestant religion creating unhealthy sexual understandings in white anglo saxon males. We see the black community's ideals as something to be aspired for.
Now, Stephanie. Should we only limited our reading of the text to the writers original intent?
> I think it's wrong to twist the meaning of a work to whatever
> purpose, which unfortunately, happens a great deal with the
> Bible itself.
Yes the meaning of the work can be twisted & misinterpreted. However, this danger does not preclude someone other than the writer having the best understanding of their work.
> The subconscious does play a heavy part in some forms of
> literature, yet, I daresay that most authors, upon
> proofreading understand the meaning of what they wrote.
> After all, it came from their own mind. I will sometimes
> write something without knowing precisely what I am saying
> and after I read it, I understand what came out totally.
I would point out the might only see their intended meaning.
> > Stephanie, I am not a fan of Marx. The only worthwhile
> > contribution he made to human society is creating a form
> > understanding a situation.
> > Marx as a form of government & society was always a bad idea.
> > IMO.
> Marx agreed. That was my point. Others put different
> interpretation of Marx's work and put it into practice,
> something that Marx was set totally against.
No, the put into practice what Marx wrote off. They may have added to Marx utopia with their version of hell but the put into practice what Marx wrote.
> > Whose ideas have managed to kill\murder more people than any
> > other persons? Marx. Far more than any other ideology
> > including religion.
> Read again. Marx never intended for any of his ideas of a
> utopia to ever be put into practice. I think saying that
> Marx's utopia caused far more death than religion is
> extraordinarily wrong. Religion has been a cause of death
> for several millenia. Can't compete with a few millenia of
> bloodshed with only 100 years.
The reordering of society involved in any Marxist state almost inevitably brought a lot of death. I am sure Marx didn't want his ideals to writing to hurt people. It was trite of Marx to right of the plight of his fellow working man & to write that the working man should rise up and overthrow his capitalist masters then to eventually...once all his ideas are in print and in the public domain...to write its a bad idea by the way.
Perhaps in a way you have illustrated my point for me. The meaning of Marx's literature is found in his writing not in Marx himself. His writing categories people into sects depending upon were they are in the money chain. He encourage those lower down the money chain to rise up and overcome their rich masters. Marx as a person upon realising what he has writen cannot change the meaning of his work retrospectively. His baby has grown up & was now interascting with the world by itself.
His texts were independent of him they were no longer his.
> > I really don't think we are going to agree on this. But
> > there is no harm in exchanging or conflicting ideas. I would
> > suggest that you are not in fact a poet. Surely a true
> > poet's poetry should in some way make the world a better
> Well, outside of the obvious insult there, which I'm going to
> utterly disregard because you have never even read any of my
> poetry, a poet's poetry is not required to "make the world a
> better place". The mass of poetic works are generally very
> individual. Poetry is a collection of words that evoke an
> emotive response. There is no rule that only true poetry
> must make the world a better place. Emily Dickinson's poetry
> was very personal to her, non-politic, and an extension of
> Dickinson herself as well. Her purpose for writing her poems
> was not to "better the world" but, instead, to write. She
> never even attempted to get her works published in her
> lifetime. She was published post-mortem. But, by your
> standards, Dickinson must not have been a true poet either
> because her intent was never to make the world a better
> place. How wrong the world must be for hanging laurels of
> praise on her after death....
Yes the point I made could be read as an insult. But that was not my meaning. So please do not read into my writing a meaning I did not intend.
I wrote that prefixing it with an acknowledgement that we were going to disagree. Yes I know about Dickinson, their are other writers who wrote in private & did not intend their work to be published as well. However, the point of my non-intended insult was to lead you to ask of yourself how your poem would appear if it was allowed to be read by a wider readership. I haven't read a lot of Dickenson so I am having problems creating an analogy.
Have you tried an experiment of posting one of your poems on the MB and asking for people's thoughts?
> > Please use the word parable with a mixture of historical
> > account.
> Historical account according to whom? I don't know whether I
> would classify the bible as a historical account or mythos or
> a mixture of both.
Historical, parable, myth? So you agree that it shouldn't be read literally?
> Actually, no, that is not how I read it. What I see is an
> ancient anthropomorphic god myth no different from any other
> culture's myths. Just as deities were attributed to things
> such as thunder or lightening (or rainbows), they were also
> often attributed into making creatures of the earth whatever
> they appear to be now. Arachne becomes a spider because she
> was a weaver who bragged, Daphne a laurel tree, Narcissus a
> flower that grows near still ponds. It is not uncommon for
> animals to speak in mythology and even less uncommon for them
> to have been altered by a deity as a form of punishment or
> reward. That is how I see this section of genesis. Btw,
> you are making too many assumptions even then in your
> supposed summary of what I read of the fall from grace.
> > Am I missing something?
> Yes, the point of almost everything I've said.
Your last comment was probably writen in frustration & could be read by me as being insulting but I think I will chose the former interpretation rather than the latter.
You seem to desire to read works symbolically then deny that in fact that is what youy have done.