Fun Stuff > BAND

Music & Politics

<< < (12/13) > >>

blindsuperhero:
Meaning is contextual. Is the only valid meaning the one with which it was originally created? If so, then in order to get meaning from an artwork must you wholly understand the context in which it was created? Is it even possible to do this?

KharBevNor:
I never said that. I just said you're going to have to keep in mind the author and the authors intentions. Sometimes the authors intentions is just for you to interpret it in any way you want. But more often than not, this is not the case.

I have particular beef with schools of criticism such as marxist, feminist, national socialist etc. As they are merely concerned with proving definitively that their cause celebre as it were is almost the central element of human existence, creating political implication where, quite simply, none exists.

Borondir:

--- Quote from: zekterellium ---khar, the lord of the rings was written during the second world war, gandalf was a metaphor for moses and sauron was a metaphor for hitlet. the hobbits represented the working class and the elves represented the upper class, abandoning middle earth (europe) the first chance that they got. while writing the book, j. r. r. tolkien's sons were in the army getting shot at.

so, i can see why it isn't political or anti anything in any way.
--- End quote ---
I really hope you are joking. Oh well, some other people have already addressed Tolkien's negative feelings towards allegory and the fact that the LotR is a myth.

I try to go for balance in my understanding of meaning. A work of art can mean so much more than the artist, from his limited perspective, intentended it to, but it's also very important to know the author's intentions and experience as an aid to realizing the larger meaning.  

On the politics thing, I think we might have definitions of politics that vary in scope and inclusiveness.

a pack of wolves:

--- Quote from: KharBevNor ---I never said that. I just said you're going to have to keep in mind the author and the authors intentions. Sometimes the authors intentions is just for you to interpret it in any way you want. But more often than not, this is not the case.

I have particular beef with schools of criticism such as marxist, feminist, national socialist etc. As they are merely concerned with proving definitively that their cause celebre as it were is almost the central element of human existence, creating political implication where, quite simply, none exists.
--- End quote ---


Not really. Can't say anything about NS criticism since I've never read any, and anyone who follows that path would be undoubtedly too stupid to come up with any interesting criticism. But in the case of feminism for example, many feminist readings are trying to bring an examination of the female into prominence when previously it has been left in the background. Obviously that piece of criticism will have that aspect as central, but the whole point is that you don't just read one perspective, or at least you don't have to.

I can see why you personally might think that the author's conception is the most important, but it's not the only standpoint. I really don't care, which is why I read few interviews and can't even name the members of most of my favourite bands.

Johnny C:
Okay, I was diggin' around in my room today and I came across the short story book I've been reading, and it actually has some interesting stuff to say on the topic of symbolism. Keep in mind that it's discussing the short story form, but that it could easily apply to lyrics.


--- Quote ---The ability to recognize and identify symbols requires perception and tact. The great danger facing the student when he first becomes aware of symbolical values is a tendency to run wild - to find symbols everywhere and to read into the details of a story all sorts of fanciful meanings not legitimately supported by it. The beginning reader needs to remember that most stories operate almost wholly at the literal level, and that even in a story like "Tears, Idle Tears" [contained in the book as an example of both symbolism and character] most details are purely literal. A story should not be made the excuse for an exercise in ingenuity. It is better, indeed, to miss the symbolical meanings of a story than to pervert its meaning by discovering symbols which are nonexistent. Better to miss the boat than to jump wildly for it and drown.
--- End quote ---


Not really on the original topic, but I thought it was neat.


Also, question: How political are Metric? Songs like "Succexxy" and lines like "Every ten-year-old enemy soldier / thinks falling bombs are shooting stars sometimes" are definitely politically-minded, yet so many of the songs seem more about love and social critique. Or is the latter politics?

POLITICS ARE CONFUSING

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page