The Tony Soprano and Hello Kitty stories are about the same thing - Vox
Yesterday, the culture world was dominated by two stories. In the first, David Chase told our writer that Tony Soprano wasn't dead after all . (Chase later said his remarks were "misconstrued," but he did not deny having said them.)
In the second, the Japanese cartoon cat best known as Hello Kitty was revealed in the Los Angeles Times to, uh, not be a cat , but rather a little girl. Who just looks like a cat? We guess? It turns out a translation error may have been the problem here. So Hello Kitty is a cat after all. Phew.
Authorial intent is an idea within criticism kung fu panda 2 stream of what the author intended when he or she created a work of art. It rose out of the world of literary criticism, which is why the word "author" is there, but it's gradually come to be applied to just about every possible artform.
If you are a big believer in authorial intent (sometimes called an intentionalist), then you believe wholeheartedly that what the author wanted to do with the work is one of the most important things that can be determined. Thus, if David Chase says Tony Soprano kung fu panda 2 stream is alive or J.K. Rowling kung fu panda 2 stream says Dumbledore kung fu panda 2 stream is gay or Sanrio says Hello Kitty is a girl, you probably revise your opinions of the work in question to reflect these ideas. You also will probably get in a lot of arguments about Hello Kitty from now on (especially with people who know Japanese), but you get the idea.
But you might have noticed a lot of TV critics yesterday saying they didn't much care about what Chase said (both in the wake of the piece and after he released the later statement), that they remained comfortable with the idea of the final scene being totally kung fu panda 2 stream ambiguous. And this is because many, many critics reject the idea of authorial intent completely.
Well, think about it this way. If you're like a lot of people, the idea of Hello Kitty being a little girl is an odd one. You're probably quite comfortable deciding for yourself that she's a cat and leaving it at that. (Since you're calling her Hello Kitty, you're already expressing your comfort kung fu panda 2 stream with the death of authorial intent, as Sanrio says her name is "Kitty White.") Congratulations, you've rejected kung fu panda 2 stream the chains of authorial intent!
Of course, kung fu panda 2 stream for a lot of people, it's easier kung fu panda 2 stream to do this with a cartoon mascot controlled by corporate overlords that they'd kung fu panda 2 stream apparently misunderstood from the word go. If Warner Brothers released paperwork from the 1930s that proved Bugs Bunny was actually a gopher kung fu panda 2 stream tomorrow, nobody would go along with that either. These sorts of ideas have long since moved past their original owners and out into our collective unconscious, perhaps because they're so heavily identified kung fu panda 2 stream not with individual creators kung fu panda 2 stream but with corporate masters.
This gets trickier when you get to the level of an individual book, film, album, or TV series. Despite the collaboration that goes into all of these artforms, we're quite comfortable attributing credit for them to the author, director, artist or band, and showrunner, respectively, because we live in a world where auteur theory is largely kung fu panda 2 stream accepted. (Briefly, auteur theory is the idea that even highly kung fu panda 2 stream collaborative artforms like film have authors, and in a film, that author is the director. This idea has spread to TV, where the showrunner has become the equivalent of a director.)
Because we live in a largely individualistic kung fu panda 2 stream society, we tend to be inclined to respect other people's wishes within reason. And so, out of subconscious politeness, plenty of us retroactively agree with Rowling that, hey, Dumbledore is gay, because it doesn't really negate anybody's readings of the Harry Potter books, and it's kind of cool and inclusive (if very strange to announce after all the books had been published).
The problem comes when a work signals intentional ambiguity, and the author comes out and says specifically what they intended. Even beyond David Chase, we have the curious case of Ridley Scott and the film Blade Runner .
In the film, Harrison Ford's character, Rick Deckard, is chasing down so-called "replicants," which are humanoid robots that have attained sentience. Throughout the film, the suggestion that Deckard himself might be a replicant is teased but never confirmed, and it's led, as you'd expect, kung fu panda 2 stream to a fair number of debates about Deckard's true nature. But within the text of the film, it seems clear that whether he is or isn't a replicant doesn't matter, because the true reason for this ambiguity is to play around with ideas about the class system, about how any time we try to reduce someone to a faceless "other," we dehumanize and invalidate them.
Then, years after the film's release, Scott announced that when he made the film, he very much intended for Deckard to be a replicant, and we should all watch the film that way. As far as some were concerned, that was that. But do the questions of Blade Runner (or The Soprano
Yesterday, the culture world was dominated by two stories. In the first, David Chase told our writer that Tony Soprano wasn't dead after all . (Chase later said his remarks were "misconstrued," but he did not deny having said them.)
In the second, the Japanese cartoon cat best known as Hello Kitty was revealed in the Los Angeles Times to, uh, not be a cat , but rather a little girl. Who just looks like a cat? We guess? It turns out a translation error may have been the problem here. So Hello Kitty is a cat after all. Phew.
Authorial intent is an idea within criticism kung fu panda 2 stream of what the author intended when he or she created a work of art. It rose out of the world of literary criticism, which is why the word "author" is there, but it's gradually come to be applied to just about every possible artform.
If you are a big believer in authorial intent (sometimes called an intentionalist), then you believe wholeheartedly that what the author wanted to do with the work is one of the most important things that can be determined. Thus, if David Chase says Tony Soprano kung fu panda 2 stream is alive or J.K. Rowling kung fu panda 2 stream says Dumbledore kung fu panda 2 stream is gay or Sanrio says Hello Kitty is a girl, you probably revise your opinions of the work in question to reflect these ideas. You also will probably get in a lot of arguments about Hello Kitty from now on (especially with people who know Japanese), but you get the idea.
But you might have noticed a lot of TV critics yesterday saying they didn't much care about what Chase said (both in the wake of the piece and after he released the later statement), that they remained comfortable with the idea of the final scene being totally kung fu panda 2 stream ambiguous. And this is because many, many critics reject the idea of authorial intent completely.
Well, think about it this way. If you're like a lot of people, the idea of Hello Kitty being a little girl is an odd one. You're probably quite comfortable deciding for yourself that she's a cat and leaving it at that. (Since you're calling her Hello Kitty, you're already expressing your comfort kung fu panda 2 stream with the death of authorial intent, as Sanrio says her name is "Kitty White.") Congratulations, you've rejected kung fu panda 2 stream the chains of authorial intent!
Of course, kung fu panda 2 stream for a lot of people, it's easier kung fu panda 2 stream to do this with a cartoon mascot controlled by corporate overlords that they'd kung fu panda 2 stream apparently misunderstood from the word go. If Warner Brothers released paperwork from the 1930s that proved Bugs Bunny was actually a gopher kung fu panda 2 stream tomorrow, nobody would go along with that either. These sorts of ideas have long since moved past their original owners and out into our collective unconscious, perhaps because they're so heavily identified kung fu panda 2 stream not with individual creators kung fu panda 2 stream but with corporate masters.
This gets trickier when you get to the level of an individual book, film, album, or TV series. Despite the collaboration that goes into all of these artforms, we're quite comfortable attributing credit for them to the author, director, artist or band, and showrunner, respectively, because we live in a world where auteur theory is largely kung fu panda 2 stream accepted. (Briefly, auteur theory is the idea that even highly kung fu panda 2 stream collaborative artforms like film have authors, and in a film, that author is the director. This idea has spread to TV, where the showrunner has become the equivalent of a director.)
Because we live in a largely individualistic kung fu panda 2 stream society, we tend to be inclined to respect other people's wishes within reason. And so, out of subconscious politeness, plenty of us retroactively agree with Rowling that, hey, Dumbledore is gay, because it doesn't really negate anybody's readings of the Harry Potter books, and it's kind of cool and inclusive (if very strange to announce after all the books had been published).
The problem comes when a work signals intentional ambiguity, and the author comes out and says specifically what they intended. Even beyond David Chase, we have the curious case of Ridley Scott and the film Blade Runner .
In the film, Harrison Ford's character, Rick Deckard, is chasing down so-called "replicants," which are humanoid robots that have attained sentience. Throughout the film, the suggestion that Deckard himself might be a replicant is teased but never confirmed, and it's led, as you'd expect, kung fu panda 2 stream to a fair number of debates about Deckard's true nature. But within the text of the film, it seems clear that whether he is or isn't a replicant doesn't matter, because the true reason for this ambiguity is to play around with ideas about the class system, about how any time we try to reduce someone to a faceless "other," we dehumanize and invalidate them.
Then, years after the film's release, Scott announced that when he made the film, he very much intended for Deckard to be a replicant, and we should all watch the film that way. As far as some were concerned, that was that. But do the questions of Blade Runner (or The Soprano
No comments:
Post a Comment