>One thing I am curious about is the distinction you’re
>making regarding the artists intention. Forgive me if I’m
>misquoting you (I’m not digging up archives for this and
>don’t view this as an argument where I want to stick it to
>you or find a gotcha or anything) but I seem to recall you
>saying something along the line of a writers intent being
>immaterial due to the interpretation of the reader and that
>subtext can exist whether or not it’s intended to exist.
>
>If I remember correctly, I argued that subtext may exist in
>terms of how the reader interprets things, but that it still
>wouldn’t change the writers intent.
>
>I could have this backward or sideways or misquoted or what
>have you, but it seems to correlate to this.
>
>I’m not arguing the intent of the artist or whether there
>are elements that may not translate fully when you remove one
>aspect of the senses intended to consume the medium as a
>whole, but I am drawing a distinction in whether or not people
>will, on an individual basis, lose as much in translation as
>someone else will due to our general aesthetic preferences as
>individuals.

I think there's a difference between one's interpretation vs. one's choice regarding intake of artistic medium.

If you interpret a scene in a book or movie, or you interpret a song or an acting choice in a play, or what have you--- when doing that, you are absorbing the art through its intended medium. Now, how you choose to interpret what the artist is putting out there? That's up to you, as you're viewing it through your own lenses, your colors, your personal biases, your histories, etc.

If you choose to take in a piece of art by selectively isolating merely a part of the artist's intended medium of conveying his or her story, you still are making your own individual interpretations regarding what you are absorbing... but you are making the choice to ignore certain sensory aspects of the storytelling.

And sometimes this can still be enjoyable. Some books obviously work as audiobooks well, as do some movies, TV shows, plays. I'm sure some music videos are enjoyable without audio, as would be some plays, movies, TV shows, etc.

But it's still not the full story. Not quite. Hence my hesitation and my particular analogy. I think the distinction between interpretation and partial sensory intake is an important one. Not saying "IF YOU DO THIS YOU'RE A DUM DUM LULZ" or anything, but for people saying the visuals *are* an important part of the story... well, that's pretty undeniable. It was conceived as a visual/auditory experience. I'm sure The Wire would also be enjoyable and the storytelling would still be conveyed if you watched it on mute... but it still wouldn't be the entire medium.

Does that make sense? I see where you're coming from and I'm not trying to belittle the notion that listening to movies/TV/plays can contain aesthetic value or can even accurately convey the majority of the story. Again, I've listened to recordings of David Mamet films. I used to make audio recordings of my favorite TV stand-up specials, and there would be gaps where I would miss the faces, the movements, etc... but I still was able to derive a great deal of pleasure from them.

I merely disagree with the notion that only listening to an audio/visual medium work of art is akin to consumer interpretation. Because any interpretation you may be forming from that audio, you're only forming from half of the (and this is the most confusing term I could use for this conversation) "picture." I have no doubt that seeing the visuals after hearing only the audio would unquestionably change one's take on the story-- "oh, that facial expression/camera angle/color/mise en scene/etc. means I was off on how I thought this scene went."

Now, is there anything wrong with that? I'm inclined to say no. Hence why I think it's worth examining. But I definitely tend to place more value on taking the medium as intended before diving into personal interpretation.