I'm responding to Panayiotis Mina's statement:
A poem is supposed to be the authors mind set and expression of
> feeling at the time he wrote it.
> films arent exactly poems because they involve a lot more than sitting
down
> with a pen and scribble words on a piece of paper (words that contain
> peronal struggle) but i myself cant help but file those two categories of
> art in the same folder in my head.
>
This formulation - the idea that art is 'the spontaneous overflow of
powerful feeling', and primarily 'expressive' of the individual
imagination - while it still has credibility for the 'I know what I like'
school of critic, entirely occludes the developments in critical theory
since Romanticism - formalism, structuralism, post-structuralism,
deconstruction, postmodernism, etc etc. If the art object speaks for itself,
with no need of interpretation, no shift of meaning according to who is
viewing/reading it, no relationship to a social context, no intertextuality
with the past, then indeed there's no need for a forum like this one. Jane
Bryce
|