reclaiming meaning

[perdrix]

Of course works of art have meanings which the artist emself* didn't put there. The viewer interprets - art is a dialogue. But what I don't understand is the artist reclaiming the interpretation. For example, at my writers' group in Paris the week before last, we were discussing a girl's poem, and I admired the way she had expressed what I thought

Comments

[androidkiller]

That last bit reminds me of a quote from a priest in a series of contemporary fantasy books I've read.

"Why, when I talk about faith, do you always assume I'm talking about God?"

Also, the Spivak pronouns have been around for a while now - I know a few people who use them, and I can't decide whether I personally prefer them to the singular "they". I do prefer them to the "Sie" etc ones though, which feel like they don't fit with English. However I mostly try to refer to people with whichever one they prefer, although I often fail at this - years of solely using "he" and "she" etc are not easily overturned.

[filecoreinuse]

Right back to Old English the dative third person singular neuter pronoun has always been 'him'. The nominative for both genders was also variants on 'he'. Don't start fecking about with perceived gender now! No-one will know what you're talking about!

[countess_rezia]

Language is always evolving and it partly evolves to meet the needs of the society that speak it.

There's definately a need for generally understood words that mean "a person who isn't male or female" and "him or her or a person of another gender" I frequently finding myself needing a word like this when I speak or write. I don't have a particular one I'm in favour of.

I can see the argument for using "him" in the way that say, "actor" is used instead of the outdated "actress." However "him" has been used for too long as an opposite to "her" - it has strong associations with the masculine in a way a word like "actor" doesn't. It might be used as a neuter but it's rarely understood as one. If you say "him" people assume you're talking about a man.

[filecoreinuse]

What about "it"? It is even more PC since it encompasses furries who don't want to be put into a rigid society-defined 'species' box. Your hypothetical pronoun would exclude them which I find offensive on their behalf.

[countess_rezia]

because "it" implies "not human"?

I wasn't specifically thinking about being "PC" or not causing offence, as I'm sure you know :) I'm looking for a word which conveys what I mean and which will be generally understood as that.

[countess_rezia]

Interesting. I'm used to the idea that the interpretation of others would be adopted by the artist, I guess because of the theatre background: that's the process by which scripts are developed.

I don't think there's a hard line between art that's created with a deliberate meaning and art that's "doodling aimlessly" or whatever the art form's equivilent of that is. When I write something I always have a very definate idea not only of the different meanings I want to convey, but of the way in which I want to do so: My work is more contrived, more deliberate, more focused on the nuance of every word and the implications of certain syntax than most; but I still find sometimes it just comes - sometimes it seems to write itself; sometimes I don't know where a flow of words have come from. How do you see the role of the subconcious in creating art?

On the other point: You can certainly have belief without faith, but faith without belief? I think so, but I'll have to think it through more.

Hoping to have my say

[anonymous]

Hi - I am certainly glad to find this. Good job!