Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pacdidj" data-source="post: 5279882" data-attributes="member: 86793">The premise that expressive works (of art, music, literature, or any other type) have an inherent meaning, or are unambiguous conduits of the &quot;intent&quot; of their creator/performer, is at best highly contested, and regarded by many in the humanities as fallacious. Meaning is dependent on perception, and most readers, audience members, and museum patrons don't know the creators of the works they perceive or what their intentions might be/might have been. Thus, whatever a particular &quot;work&quot; means to someone is just that and nothing more: what it means to them. There is no guarantee that it will mean the same thing to anyone else.There may be widely perceived associations, discourses, or themes within some works, but trying to identify say the primary theme within the Brothers Karamazov, the representative content (if any) of a Jackson Pollack painting, or what Jimi Hendrix was getting at in his cover of All Along the Watchtower is an exercise in futility.Furthermore, even in the case where someone knows that Sting said that he wrote a particular song about stalking, but chooses to interpret it differently, that can hardly be called unfair. The average CD/ticket buyer doesn't know Sting personally, and is under no obligation to take Sting's opinions into account, or share his interpretation of an ambiguous creative work (even if he did write it). Interpreting it some other way doesn't hurt Sting in any way, especially if that alternate interpretation leads to the purchase of CDs/songs/tickets. Same thing with games IMHO. Nothing you do with a game you bought could really be said to be unfair to its creators. Change the rules however you want, you're still buying and playing their game, and they've got nothing to complain about.Now bad-mouthing someone's artistic creation (or game) sight unseen, unlistened-to, unpurchased, or unplayed is another thing entirely, and could perhaps be called unfair.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pacdidj, post: 5279882, member: 86793"] The premise that expressive works (of art, music, literature, or any other type) have an inherent meaning, or are unambiguous conduits of the "intent" of their creator/performer, is at best highly contested, and regarded by many in the humanities as fallacious. Meaning is dependent on perception, and most readers, audience members, and museum patrons don't know the creators of the works they perceive or what their intentions might be/might have been. Thus, whatever a particular "work" [I]means [/I]to someone is just that and nothing more: what it means [I]to them. [/I]There is no guarantee that it will mean the same thing to anyone else. There may be widely perceived associations, discourses, or themes within some works, but trying to identify say the primary theme within the Brothers Karamazov, the representative content (if any) of a Jackson Pollack painting, or what Jimi Hendrix was getting at in his cover of All Along the Watchtower is an exercise in futility. Furthermore, even in the case where someone knows that Sting said that he wrote a particular song about stalking, but chooses to interpret it differently, that can hardly be called unfair. The average CD/ticket buyer doesn't know Sting personally, and is under no obligation to take Sting's opinions into account, or share his interpretation of an ambiguous creative work (even if he did write it). Interpreting it some other way doesn't hurt Sting in any way, especially if that alternate interpretation leads to the purchase of CDs/songs/tickets. Same thing with games IMHO. Nothing you do with a game you bought could really be said to be unfair to its creators. Change the rules however you want, you're still buying and playing their game, and they've got nothing to complain about. Now bad-mouthing someone's artistic creation (or game) sight unseen, unlistened-to, unpurchased, or unplayed is another thing entirely, and could perhaps be called unfair. [/QUOTE]

Verification