3 ms·

If you're going to make an assertion about the intent of an author's work, it seems like you should back that up with facts? Otherwise it's an "i think" or "it

If you're going to make an assertion about the intent of an author's work, it seems like you should back that up with facts? Otherwise it's an "i think" or "it seems like" or "one could argue", isn't it?

animuchan 2y ago
The thing with art is, everyone is entitled to an interpretation. So any assertion about the intent of a work is subjective. Interestingly, this continues to be the case even when the author states his intent plainly. Jonathan Blow's "Braid" is a great example of this: there are several different readings of the story, despite Blow openly talking about his intended meaning. (I would argue that a text that only allows a single "correct" interpretation is an instruction manual, not a work of art.)
- dagw 2y ago
  The thing with art is, everyone is entitled to an interpretation. The statement that kicked this off was not a statement of interpretation, but a statement of fact: "Asimov wrote the three laws as a parody". This is a statement that has a true or false answer. You are free to interpret the story as parody and to try to find evidence in the text and use that to argue your point, and that is a perfectly valid way to interpret the stories, but tells you nothing on Asimovs initial intentions. If you are going to say "The artist intended X when creating this work" then you're going to need evidence beyond the work. Just like there is no one right way interpret a work of art, you cannot use a work of art in isolation to 'prove' artist intent.
DiggyJohnson 2y ago
No, and the tone that you're making this assertion is laughable. You're saying a discussion in the realm of literary analysis and interpretation should be backed up with "facts"? And that statements like "I think" are out of bounds? I think you were asked a good question. What would constitute "evidence", to you?

3 ms·

If you're going to make an assertion about the intent of an author's work, it seems like you should back that up with facts? Otherwise it's an "i think" or "it

by kevingadd 2y ago

animuchan 2y ago
The thing with art is, everyone is entitled to an interpretation. So any assertion about the intent of a work is subjective. Interestingly, this continues to be the case even when the author states his intent plainly. Jonathan Blow's "Braid" is a great example of this: there are several different readings of the story, despite Blow openly talking about his intended meaning. (I would argue that a text that only allows a single "correct" interpretation is an instruction manual, not a work of art.)
- dagw 2y ago
  The thing with art is, everyone is entitled to an interpretation. The statement that kicked this off was not a statement of interpretation, but a statement of fact: "Asimov wrote the three laws as a parody". This is a statement that has a true or false answer. You are free to interpret the story as parody and to try to find evidence in the text and use that to argue your point, and that is a perfectly valid way to interpret the stories, but tells you nothing on Asimovs initial intentions. If you are going to say "The artist intended X when creating this work" then you're going to need evidence beyond the work. Just like there is no one right way interpret a work of art, you cannot use a work of art in isolation to 'prove' artist intent.
DiggyJohnson 2y ago
No, and the tone that you're making this assertion is laughable. You're saying a discussion in the realm of literary analysis and interpretation should be backed up with "facts"? And that statements like "I think" are out of bounds? I think you were asked a good question. What would constitute "evidence", to you?