Should Writers and Artists Explain What They Mean?

yes

Only Finish ones. My latest killing is: http://www.bookscape.co.uk/short_stories/human_sacrifice.php I write book reviews here: http://www.litarena.com/books/

it would depend on how stupid the reader was

Yes. Looking at it from the point of view of poetry, it can sometimes be helpful to give things a little bit of context. But nothing annoys me more than poets who introduce a poem by explaining the specific devices they're using: "the image of the tide going in and out is a metaphor for the sad times and the happy times my husband and I have experienced during our marriage." I think the police should be allowed to shoot people for doing that.

I don't think it means you've failed necessarily. It can be helpful to hear an artist's comments on their work. For instance, John Lennon's remarks on the Beatles' songs were very interesting and helped to put some of them in context for me. What I hate is people over analysing literary works and reading messages and themes into them that the author had probably never intended. For this reason English Literature was my least favourite subject at school.

I disagree. I think if I used a metaphor to explain the relationship between my husband and me it would require quite a bit of explanation, (not least to me.)

If you review someone's book and they don't like what you've said about it, you soon get lots of, "ah, yes, but what I wrote wasn't what I meant," conversations. It's not just in English Literature that that goes on. Still, some are bloody gracious though, especially if you've put a bit of effort into your analysis. My latest killing is: http://www.bookscape.co.uk/short_stories/human_sacrifice.php I write book reviews here: http://www.litarena.com/books/

"What I hate is people over analysing literary works and reading messages and themes into them that the author had probably never intended. For this reason English Literature was my least favourite subject at school." I think analysis can be one of the major joys of literature. It can also be a tedious process. I don't think there's any problem with finding things in writing that the author might not have intended - for me, that's one of main points of showing my writing to people who aren't me. I'm more worried about the kind of English teaching that's along the lines of: "what are the five things that Shakespeare's saying in this speech?"

I had what was euphemistically called 'Advanced English' class in high school. I had to do a book report on one of Ayn Rand's books, I forget which one now (this was about a hundred years ago): either The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged. One of the travesties of having to read that kind of book when one is seventeen is that I didn't understand a fricking word of it, and so used the Cliff Notes to cobble together my report. It was full of 'literary symbolism', like the protagonist's eye colour being green to represent money, that kind of crap. What's the point, I asked? I suppose this is different to the use of allegory in writing; and perhaps a little bit of explanation is needed if you are writing, say, a subtle political essay using allegory as a cloak. But in most types of writing, people ought to 'get' what is being written without *too* much thought having to go into whether the protagonist's eyes are green because she is a capitalist. Or whatever it was. If you need Cliff Notes to figure it out, you shouldn't read it. Or maybe, write it.

this is a good question, and an old question. I think all kinds of profound layer and meaning happens by total accident. There is this whole sidecar academic and critical industry that sets itself up to explain what art is. Have you ever read any of Clement Greenburg's essays on abstract expressionism? This is hilarious stuff, it will give you a headache. I think there was an earlier thread on academic art language to this point. They asked Picasso how he approached "the act of creation" and he said he wasn't creating anything, just painting what he found. It's always interesting to hear artists discuss form/technique/approach but it seems lay people and left brainers need everything explained. it's a mystery how it just happens, the last mystery available.

I cannot agree more. Shakespeare never explained himself - and his famous 'image chains' weren't discovered until the mid 20th century. Did he mean them? Does it matter? Who knows and no are the correct answers. My wife is an artist and she constantly has to try and think up explanations for her work after she's done it. It's barmy - but buyers want to know. The language of art is even worse than the language of English literature. It's utterly impenetrable to artists, for sure, but it keeps sub standard academics in a job. Stephen Hawking once said that you can always tell a good scientists because he/she can explain their work and theories to anyone. I think that in art and writing the work should stand alone - let the chattering classes chatter, but never explain.

I usually enjoy art more knowing nothing about the artist's intentions. I remember going to see Roy Harper when I was at University, the stoned old git rambled on insisting on explaining songs which up to then I had loved. He did for some of those songs for good with his meandering monologues. This question is perhaps related to how much it is good to know about the artist him or herself. I sometimes find it difficult to get entirely past an artist's media persona to just appreciate the work, which is a shame because arseholes don't always produce crap, and nice people might very well never produce anything worth looking at. The political positions of individual artists of course present a whole other and possibly even more problematic territory. Sometimes though, I imagine, a worthwhile dialogue might develop between an artist and an audience. It is up to us an readers or viewers to listen or not to artists who want to explain; to give what credence we want to the explanations we are offered.

I suppose it depends upon whether we're talking about representative art or figurative art. The former ought to be self-explanatory and the latter not. And, to be fair to buyers, if they're paying large amounts of money for something that they don't understand, then they might as well have a story anyway. At least that makes them feel more knowledgeable. Representative writing, be it plays or stories, from the Ancient Greeks, and doubtless earlier, could involve well-known forms. So, if you're dancing around with a mask on your face and a huge, fake phallus on, then the audience knows you're supposed to be Bachus. Conversely, I'm sure explaining needs to be done when the audience expects one thing and receives something else. The Turner Prize is great for doing that. It often promises Art and delivers an empty room for example. The audience is then entitled to say, "What is this? Is it some kind of joke?" And it often does. My latest killing is: http://www.bookscape.co.uk/short_stories/human_sacrifice.php I write book reviews here: http://www.litarena.com/books/

I like patmac's point about the nasty person producing great art. I read a biography of Bob Dylan a couple of years ago and the man came across as such an unrelenting s**t that it has slightly put me off him ever since - but so many of his songs are still utterly wonderful - and no, I don't want his explanation!

It was Kropotkin38 who made that point. I can't take credit for it. But I do remember being in a long conversation about writers and thinkers who did horrible things to people, (like Schopenhauer, who threw his landlady downstairs, and Rousseau who deserted his children.) And the question was do you think less of their work now that you know these things? My latest killing is: http://www.bookscape.co.uk/short_stories/human_sacrifice.php I write book reviews here: http://www.litarena.com/books/

I saw Bob Dylan in concert this summer. He did a perfectly awful rendition of 'Blowing in the Wind' (the song was nearly half-over before I figured out that it was, indeed, that particular song).He kept his back to the audience for the *entire concert* and acknowledged us but once, and that was only to introduce his band members. Unrelenting s**t? You bet. He's long past the 'spokesman for a generation' phase and is now into the 'doing it only for the money and really ought to retire on what he's got' one. Pah. Thank goodness it was my mum what bought the tickets. Even she was a little puzzled by his attitude. But agree with Tony C. 100%: many of his songs are still lyrical masterpieces (if you don't hear them live), despite his being a w*nker.

I haven't seen Dylan live but I really liked Chronicles. He certainly came across as being more interested in singing songs and getting some money for it than hippy ideas but, for me, that's a major plus.

This is a subject close to my heart at the moment. I'm doing a Literature Studies and Creative Writing Course, and I'm currently working on Ian McEwan's Atonement. I have just read an article in an academic journal, twice, and I have no idea what the writer is talking about. It could be a foreign language. What the hell use is that to anybody? In the creative writing workshops, we are not allowed to respond in the workshop to criticism of work by explaining or attempting to justify what we've done. The work stands or falls on its merits. Of course, that doesn't apply to down the pub afterwards.