Commentary

[sartorias]

As it's evolving on the NetCommentary on art forms (fiction) has been around for a long time. One of the things that delighted me about Chinese novels when I first discovered them was that people added their commentary into the text when copying them. In Western Europe, with the evolution of print, we didn't go that way--commentary developed in

Comments

[fiveandfour]

I agree that many creators seem to have difficulty in realizing that the reasons people have an interest in commentary aren't related to being sold on the work. I think in some cases it's not so much that the sales pitch is necessarily what they want to do, but more that they have no idea what to do instead.

The kinds of commentary I enjoy the most have been the ones where it's done some years after the work found its success. That retrospection seems to lend the creators to a more reflective frame of mind and a revealing of the kind of information I'm interested in knowing.

In some cases, how a thing was achieved is fascinating to me, as well as why they thought to work on that concept in the first place. For example, in film making, the way things are filmed has a language and a grammar all its own. Who doesn't know that a swift tunnel shot onto an actor's face is meant to convey a sense of shock and/or dislocation for that character? One of the things I like to know is how and why the first person who created that grammar came up with the idea. It usually seems that some restriction in what they wanted to do led to working outside the usual rules to find a new way to communicate. It can be amazing that once that new way of communicating comes out, it becomes *the* way to communicate. Hearing an artist's take on how/why something developed in the first place as well as how/why it was accepted and further interpreted by other artists is fascinating to me.

My interest is in knowing things of that nature about the creative process, as well as the influences (other artists, life experiences, etc.) that got a work from inception to final product. Trivia about the environment in which it was created, why certain things were done, how certain choices were made...I'd much rather hear about that than why so-and-so was so fun to work with.

Another thing I find interesting, depending on my level of interest in the artists apart from their work, is how their personal experiences and interactions end up translated into the final work. For example, U2 fans know that one of their greatest and most successful albums was born out of a period of time that nearly broke up the band. They reached a crisis point very similar to one that has broken up many other groups, but somehow pulled back from the brink of destruction of the band and ended up taking their artistic development to a significantly higher level. Upon hearing about those types of experiences, I can't help but wonder if, for artists, crisis points of some type aren't actually necessary at various moments in a career to help propel them in new (and necessary?) directions where they wouldn't go otherwise. I also can't help but wonder if, as an outsider with no way of knowing about such crisis points should the artist choose not to discuss them, I would be able to tell for myself that a particularly tough labor was involved in the delivery of the final product. Is it readily obvious in a work or do you need to know that behind-the-scenes stuff to see its influence?

If not for outside commentary on the work by the people involved in its creation, the work stands on its own. Using U2 again, one of the members of the band thinks it's a mistake for the public to know the meaning and experiences behind certain song lyrics; he prefers that everyone comes to their own meaning and not have the artist's interpretation coloring people's experience with the work.

This puts me in mind of authors and poets who also take this stance. While I understand that point of view, and in some cases agree with it, I find myself hopelessly drawn to the outside commentary anyway. Only *after* I've experienced the work and thought it through on my own terms first, but still - generally speaking, I find this new level of interaction between artists and audience enhances my experience of the work and generates a deeper understanding and appreciation that I wouldn't have if not for this new style of dialogue.

For me, a big question is: should what the artist says about a work's meaning be the final word? Should artists tell the public what something is supposed to mean with any expectation that the audience shouldn't come to an alternate meaning instead?

[fiveandfour]

And, oh heck, I'll admit it: I'm also hopelessly drawn to DVD commentaries on comedies because they are a lot of fun to experience. The people doing them are generally in high spirits with a good camaraderie, and hearing some of the antics that happened while things were in production can be damned funny. Interestingly, you also seem to get a lot more detail about the creative process with comedies than with other film types. I take it as proof of what people say about making things that are funny is harder than making things that are touching and that there's more work involved in making something humorous than most people appreciate.

[sartorias]

I hadn't thought about that, but it's true!

[sartorias]

Good questions, and no easy answer, at least that I see.

But yeah--it seems we have a lot of similar reactions to commentary.