Cause I know where I been.
Apparently, I am a performance snob. My boyfriend Beau and I have had many a tif in which he has asked me to suspend my bias when judging a performance. Examples include: Willy Wonka vs. Charlie and the Chocolate (Gene Wilder trumps everyone), Alice in Wonderland (Tim Burton just needs to stop re-creating movies...), ect ect. Once I've fallen in love with a piece I simply cannot settle for anything less than (what I would consider) greatness.
I have, however, tried these past two weeks of school to see each interpretation/piece as a lone ranger, without any original, multiples, or biases (except for The Mill on the Floss, which is boring no matter how you spin it.) And while it is a much less... critical, lets say, way of viewing art, I still ruminate on the intentional fallacy. Does it matter what the author intended to create? Or should it strictly be about the work itself? (This is where this nonsense connects to Gertrude Stein) When reading Stein's work I get super frustrated because I can't focus on what I think the piece should sound/feel/read like, I get caught up on what Gertrude was hearing/feeling/whatnot. On pieces like "A Complete Portrait of Picasso," its no problem because we have an audio file of Stein reading the piece. But with a collaboration like Four Saints one has to wonder, how did Stein hear it? Did her vision align perfectly with the composer? How would she feel about modern interpretations of the work?
Who's to say?
Personally (for the sake of this assignment) I enjoyed listening instead of reading because it quieted a frustration in me that I would really not explore at this point in reading/homework/semester/blah, and allowed me to appreciate the piece. And who's to say that the interpretation we listened to is any better or worse than another (Snobs like me.)
Good. Think about reflecting on possible answers to your questions...
ReplyDelete