Dakota Fanning's new movie.

[SleepyWhiteSox]

So let me get this straight, any Catholic or Catholic-based organization should not ever speak out against rape, under-aged rape, or even the depiction of rape because it's too "ironic" and "hypocritical" for many of you??

[Texsox]

So let me get this straight, any Catholic or Catholic-based organization should not ever speak out against rape, under-aged rape, or even the depiction of rape because it's too "ironic" and "hypocritical" for many of you??

 

Right they should "do something" as long as it isn't being critical of anyone.

 

 

Tex, you have to take art in context. The movie is more than just the rape. It's a story. The rape is only a part of it. The characters will develop, grow and learn in some way from it. It'll also propose more questions once you actually see the story instead of judging it before hand. For instance, in Taxi Driver, DeNiro's character had to kill people to get the 14 year old prostitute back home. Is that heroic? Is it not? And so on. The boundry isn't just depicting rape...it's putting it out there so other artists can use it in different ways so they can put some other amount of awareness out there. So they can pose more questions for the general public about the atrocity in child rape. This is why breaking boundries in art is important.

 

The point I was poorly making is if one buys into the breaking down barriers argument, there is some goal, something that the artist or audience is heading to. So what is the goal in this? What couldn't be shown in 1990 that is being shown here? And, more importantly, what will be shown in 2020 because of this? I understand the testing of limits, but only if there actually are limits and when they are reached, they are kept.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Right they should "do something" as long as it isn't being critical of anyone.

 

 

Yeah, they should shut their traps and get their own house in order.

[BobDylan]

The point I was poorly making is if one buys into the breaking down barriers argument, there is some goal, something that the artist or audience is heading to. So what is the goal in this? What couldn't be shown in 1990 that is being shown here? And, more importantly, what will be shown in 2020 because of this? I understand the testing of limits, but only if there actually are limits and when they are reached, they are kept.

 

I really don't know any other way to explain it to you. Limits need to be broken so artists can use their "skills" to create and further messages. If you want to know what message being shown here is, SEE THE MOVIE. Don't judge it beforehand. We've all heard the phrase "don't judge a book by its cover."

 

Idea's like this have probably been presented all over the time periods. It's not just the artist taking a risk, it's the company that buys the film too. They've got just as much on the line. They're the people like you wondering, "What good will this do anyone?" Well, the only way to see is to put it out there. To take that risk.

 

And I can't tell you where this will bring us in 2020. You know I can't answer that question. No artist or visionary can. But unless we keep trying to progress, we'll eventually see. Won't we?

 

But MOST OF ALL, give the art a chance before you judge it.

[Texsox]

Yeah, they should shut their traps and get their own house in order.

 

Who benefits when they shut their traps? Who are you defending here? Sorry if someone preaching that abusing kids, or simulating the abuse of children, is a bad thing. One of the mistakes the Catholic Church committed was not being public, not speaking out, Now they are and you're complaining. Again I ask, who benefits when an organization with over one billion members worldwide is told to shut their traps and not speak about this? Shouldn't they be telling their members? Who is it hurting when they speak out against this?

 

 

 

Bob, setting this particular movie aside. Is there a point when the limit can't be tested anymore? Is there a point when people say, we are not going that far? And who is to decide? The lowest common denominator?

[BobDylan]

Bob, setting this particular movie aside. Is there a point when the limit can't be tested anymore? Is there a point when people say, we are not going that far? And who is to decide? The lowest common denominator?

 

Off the top of my head, the limit is when people get hurt. Sure you might say, "THIS MOVIE HURTS THE KIDS WHO SEE IT!" Sure, but then again, kids aren't supposed to see R rated movies, and it's the parents job to set them straight after they see it. And if it's an adult that is offended, as an artist, here's my response: "Sorry, pal. Don't check out my next exibit (or film, or album, or painting, or book or whatever) then. I'm sorry you were offended by it, but that's not my problem. I'm not responsible for your interpretation of my work." So I say the limit is when people are phsyically hurt.

 

And the people who decide the limits are the public. That's pretty well understood among artists. We create work so we can get criticized and praised alike.

[Texsox]

Off the top of my head, the limit is when people get hurt. Sure you might say, "THIS MOVIE HURTS THE KIDS WHO SEE IT!" Sure, but then again, kids aren't supposed to see R rated movies, and it's the parents job to set them straight after they see it. And if it's an adult that is offended, as an artist, here's my response: "Sorry, pal. Don't check out my next exibit (or film, or album, or painting, or book or whatever) then. I'm sorry you were offended by it, but that's not my problem. I'm not responsible for your interpretation of my work." So I say the limit is when people are phsyically hurt.

 

And the people who decide the limits are the public. That's pretty well understood among artists. We create work so we can get criticized and praised alike.

 

"And the people who decide the limits are the public"

 

How does the public decide the limits? When a group complains, like in this case, they are told to STFU, it's art, and art has to push beyond the limits. We're are the spot on the spot where a circular argument begins. The debate doesn't start until *after* the work has been created, at that point it is too late.

 

And our society has determined that it is, in many cases, our responsibility to not be offensive. So it is your problem. We restrict obscenities, racist remarks, etc. You can't stand on a street corner and offend people as they pass by. We have enacted laws to stop people from being a nuisance. Again, highly subjective and arbitrary, but the intent is clearly to protect society from being offended in some cases. So to say as an artist you are above the law, would be poor hubris, and I doubt you would. But we should recognize that you do have that restriction. Perhaps that is the central tenant of my belief that one can not justify any behavior as "it's art" and protected.

 

And who determines when someone is harmed? We both know that is highly subjective. Even experts in the field will debate at what point anything becomes harmful.

 

If the limit is physical harm, you are rejecting any psychological harm. That would leave the door wide open for a wide range of indecent, immoral, works. For example, paintings of child pornography would not create any physical harm, yet are clearly something our society has ruled as too offensive to produce. Again something that I am certain you wouldn't defend, but it is the crack that allows psychological harm to creep into the debate.

 

And finally, the slippery slope of interpretation is another land mine in all this. Whose interpretation is valid? A majority? The Artist? A Panel of experts? The most vocal? The most influential? And we could debate forever the role of the artist in interpretation. Is the artist's opinion of his own works important? Do we really need to know anything about the artist to understand the work? I've always felt the artist should be allowed the freedom to break out of himself. I believe the artist / author should remain a mystery and allow the work to stand on it's own merit. Others believe to know the work, one must know the producer.

[bmags]

"And the people who decide the limits are the public"

 

How does the public decide the limits? When a group complains, like in this case, they are told to STFU, it's art, and art has to push beyond the limits. We're are the spot on the spot where a circular argument begins. The debate doesn't start until *after* the work has been created, at that point it is too late.

 

And our society has determined that it is, in many cases, our responsibility to not be offensive. So it is your problem. We restrict obscenities, racist remarks, etc. You can't stand on a street corner and offend people as they pass by. We have enacted laws to stop people from being a nuisance. Again, highly subjective and arbitrary, but the intent is clearly to protect society from being offended in some cases. So to say as an artist you are above the law, would be poor hubris, and I doubt you would. But we should recognize that you do have that restriction. Perhaps that is the central tenant of my belief that one can not justify any behavior as "it's art" and protected.

 

And who determines when someone is harmed? We both know that is highly subjective. Even experts in the field will debate at what point anything becomes harmful.

 

If the limit is physical harm, you are rejecting any psychological harm. That would leave the door wide open for a wide range of indecent, immoral, works. For example, paintings of child pornography would not create any physical harm, yet are clearly something our society has ruled as too offensive to produce. Again something that I am certain you wouldn't defend, but it is the crack that allows psychological harm to creep into the debate.

 

And finally, the slippery slope of interpretation is another land mine in all this. Whose interpretation is valid? A majority? The Artist? A Panel of experts? The most vocal? The most influential? And we could debate forever the role of the artist in interpretation. Is the artist's opinion of his own works important? Do we really need to know anything about the artist to understand the work? I've always felt the artist should be allowed the freedom to break out of himself. I believe the artist / author should remain a mystery and allow the work to stand on it's own merit. Others believe to know the work, one must know the producer.

 

i think we can all agree that when the Catholic Church set the limits on morals it wasn't exactly good for the gander.

 

The point is this: People say movies are garbage now and they don't talk about anything that matter. On THe Waterfront tackled issues relevant to the time, i'm in a hurry but you can think of more examples. Well relevant to our time is this, though the general crime rate has gone down substantially the past 20 years, violence against women has not. This writer and director decided to tackle that issue and how it can affect the persons involved, timely now considering how a stupid woman in NC decided to water down rape allegations because she wanted 'something'. This isn't the first time this topic has been covered. 'M' by fritz lang, in 1931 covered a child killer, an awful shot of the ball she was plaing with rolling away from the bushes and her balloon caught up in the electric wires. In "Platoon" oliver stone showed soldiers raping a villager. This stuff moves people. into action . Whether you think it is tasteful, imo, can only be relevant after the fact of seeing it. But this is pre-sensoring, which goes against every bone in my body.

[Texsox]

i think we can all agree that when the Catholic Church set the limits on morals it wasn't exactly good for the gander.

 

They set a standard for over one billion Catholics and all but maybe a thousand lived up to that. How low should they set the standard?

 

What message does it send when the Church refused to speak out against abuse? Wouldn't the same people who call them hypocrites now claim the Chuch is not taking a strong enough stance? Abuse is wrong, we all know it. Why should any voice be silenced that proclaims that?

 

By silencing one billion people, who does it help? Why hasn't anyone answered this simple question?

 

The Church is stating that child abuse is wrong, y'all think they shouldn't say it. Who does that help? I agree that the Church, and all of society, could do much more to protect children. I also believe that society needs to continue to speak out against the hardships and horrors that some children face in their daily lives. Poverty, abuse, violence, wars, famines, persecution.

[bmags]

They set a standard for over one billion Catholics and all but maybe a thousand lived up to that. How low should they set the standard?

 

What message does it send when the Church refused to speak out against abuse? Wouldn't the same people who call them hypocrites now claim the Chuch is not taking a strong enough stance? Abuse is wrong, we all know it. Why should any voice be silenced that proclaims that?

 

By silencing one billion people, who does it help? Why hasn't anyone answered this simple question?

 

The Church is stating that child abuse is wrong, y'all think they shouldn't say it. Who does that help? I agree that the Church, and all of society, could do much more to protect children. I also believe that society needs to continue to speak out against the hardships and horrors that some children face in their daily lives. Poverty, abuse, violence, wars, famines, persecution.

 

I was referring to the times when the Catholic Church had so much power as to kill or jail anyone that tried to publish (galileo, descartes always started out with an appeasement to the church) and such. Silence before publishing is wrong, and IMO, this is just them trying to reassert their authority.

[Texsox]

I was referring to the times when the Catholic Church had so much power as to kill or jail anyone that tried to publish (galileo, descartes always started out with an appeasement to the church) and such. Silence before publishing is wrong, and IMO, this is just them trying to reassert their authority.

 

OK, I'll agree that centuries ago there was that abuse of power. But this is even more egregious than those who wish the US to pay for damages to the decedents of slaves for what they went through. Those events happened centuries ago and are not happening today.

 

Explain how to silence after it has been produced. Then it's too late. I don't see a problem with seeing the path we are on and speaking out about further events down that path. Wouldn't it be unfair to after the fact say, we saw this coming, and have had a response planned for months or years? To stand up today and say that producing films for profit that depict children being abuse should be carefully monitored and in many cases are wrong?

 

They are calling their followers to action. Just like those who believe that society and the pedophiles should be spared the lecture that child abuse is wrong are trying to assert their authority. Why is your assertion more valid than people like myself and Queen Prawn who are Catholic? (Not to draw her into the debate, but putting faces on "The Catholic Church").

[jackie hayes]

Just a factual question; has the Catholic Church said anything about the film, or just the Catholic League?

/twiddles thumbs

[BobDylan]

"And the people who decide the limits are the public"

 

How does the public decide the limits? When a group complains, like in this case, they are told to STFU, it's art, and art has to push beyond the limits. We're are the spot on the spot where a circular argument begins. The debate doesn't start until *after* the work has been created, at that point it is too late.

 

A group is still the public. In this case it's the Catholic Church. They're being told to shut the f*** up because there is an obvious hypocrisy in them stepping in. I won't dive in any more than that because I, personally, don't have a problem with the Catholic Church making their opinion known. But I do have a problem with coming to a conclusion before seeing the art.

 

And the debate has to start after the work is created. How can it start before? If you know anything about the process of art, generally the artists doesn't know what he/she is going to do. It's not until after they've made it do they know what they've actually made. If they deem it too offensive or racy, it's probably destroyed or put somewhere out of view. If not, the artist risks their reputation.

 

And our society has determined that it is, in many cases, our responsibility to not be offensive. So it is your problem. We restrict obscenities, racist remarks, etc. You can't stand on a street corner and offend people as they pass by. We have enacted laws to stop people from being a nuisance. Again, highly subjective and arbitrary, but the intent is clearly to protect society from being offended in some cases. So to say as an artist you are above the law, would be poor hubris, and I doubt you would. But we should recognize that you do have that restriction. Perhaps that is the central tenant of my belief that one can not justify any behavior as "it's art" and protected.

 

Good point. I poorly conveyed what I was trying to say. I obviously don't try to offend people with my work, but sometimes it's unavoidable. Last year I wrote a story about a man who had died and saw that Jesus Christ and Satan were actually good friends, and furthermore, partners. For people of religious background, this is pretty racy. I was plenty aware of that. However, the point of my story wasn't to attack religion. Jesus and Satan explained to my character why people go to hell, why people go to heaven, and that they were partners because our lives aren't predetermined -- they had no bearing on our lives -- and they simply discuss whether a person should go to heaven or hell. It was determined by them that this man was to go to hell not because he had done anything wrong, but because he was miserable his entire life. And because he enjoyed that misery. The point of the story was to show that happiness, no matter what form, is most important in life. There was a girl in that class of the Christian faith that dropped the class because of my story. She talked with the teacher about it, the teacher talked with me about it. The teacher told me, "There will always be people that won't understand your work. There will always be people that will blindfold themselves as soon as they see something offensive and they won't put it in context. Keep writing, don't worry about her, she'll find another class, she'll write her stories and she'll live on." So I guess the point I was trying to make is that most artists are aware that there is a certain amount of material in their work that is offensive. And it's generally not a mistake, but more so an attention grabber. But any artist with good intentions also knows that if people keep an open mind to it, they'll find the good in what they've created. So if somebody wants to attack my work from an angle that isn't there, I'll tell them to get lost. If somebody wants to tell me they were offended, but take the time to see what I was trying to do and tell me I failed miserably, I'll say, "Thanks. I appreciate the comments. I'll impliment what you've said into my next creation and hopefully you'll like it."

 

And who determines when someone is harmed? We both know that is highly subjective. Even experts in the field will debate at what point anything becomes harmful.

 

It is subjective, yes, but if the general mass audience is offended, the line was likely crossed. If the opinions are strongly divided (and equal) as they are in the case of this film, I don't think the line was crossed.

 

If the limit is physical harm, you are rejecting any psychological harm. That would leave the door wide open for a wide range of indecent, immoral, works. For example, paintings of child pornography would not create any physical harm, yet are clearly something our society has ruled as too offensive to produce. Again something that I am certain you wouldn't defend, but it is the crack that allows psychological harm to creep into the debate.

 

Great point. I was trying to dive into psycholocial harm in my last point but failed. I wouldn't accept child pornogrophy, but I also don't understand painting much. Just from that alone, I wouldn't say anything. I may ask the artist what he/she was trying to do, but aside from that, I'd just walk away and forget about it. I think that's the approach others should take.

 

And finally, the slippery slope of interpretation is another land mine in all this. Whose interpretation is valid? A majority? The Artist? A Panel of experts? The most vocal? The most influential? And we could debate forever the role of the artist in interpretation. Is the artist's opinion of his own works important? Do we really need to know anything about the artist to understand the work? I've always felt the artist should be allowed the freedom to break out of himself. I believe the artist / author should remain a mystery and allow the work to stand on it's own merit. Others believe to know the work, one must know the producer.

 

Sometimes it helps to know the artist. When I read Kafka's The Metamorphosis, I knew a little bit about Kafka. That helped me understand the story and what he was trying to do better. I've read other stories / seen other works where I didn't know the artist at all. Sometimes it didn't matter, other times it did. And everyone's interpretation is valid so long as they take the time to explore the angles the artist was going for. Commercial art tends to be less racy, and this film is obviously for commercial purposes (maybe not, maybe the filmmaker just wants to get it out to a wide audience and doesn't care even slightly about the money going into her pocket), and it tends to be dumbed down and less subjective. Since this is likely the case, I reccommend, again, to see the film to make your interpretations. You're essentially trying to censor the art before it's created. That's about the worst thing you can do to an artist because you're denying them their god given right to explore and express their own opinions. You're denying them the right to revise and grow as an artist.

 

They set a standard for over one billion Catholics and all but maybe a thousand lived up to that. How low should they set the standard?

 

What message does it send when the Church refused to speak out against abuse? Wouldn't the same people who call them hypocrites now claim the Chuch is not taking a strong enough stance? Abuse is wrong, we all know it. Why should any voice be silenced that proclaims that?

 

By silencing one billion people, who does it help? Why hasn't anyone answered this simple question?

 

The Church is stating that child abuse is wrong, y'all think they shouldn't say it. Who does that help? I agree that the Church, and all of society, could do much more to protect children. I also believe that society needs to continue to speak out against the hardships and horrors that some children face in their daily lives. Poverty, abuse, violence, wars, famines, persecution.

 

You're dismissing the other 5 billion people in the world, first of all, and second of all, this movie doesn't condone rape. Once again, see the film, see what it's about, see what they're trying to say. Take the blindfold off.

Edited January 27, 2007 by BobDylan

[Texsox]

Bob,

Part of this is how you define the Church. The Church is people like Queen Prawn and myself. Does a dozen artists taint the entire artistic community?

 

Besides pedophiles that may dislike hearing a message that abuse is wrong, how does it hurt anyone? Should Americans stop doing anything about torture around the world because we tortured prisoners?

 

Walk me through this.

 

Artist creates work. The public is outraged and it is decided that that work clearly crossed a boundary that shouldn't be crossed. Another artist is working in the same area, is it wrong to speak out before she starts or do we wait again for that work?

 

As far as not knowing, it will depend on the media being used. A film maker better have a pretty good idea before starting, someone who creates in the digital world would not.

So if somebody wants to attack my work from an angle that isn't there, I'll tell them to get lost.

 

It's not there because the artist says it isn't there? Are you telling me that the only interpretation that is valid is the artists? Isn't part of art how it captures and influences individual people. If I laugh and someone else cries at a painting, is one person wrong?

[CrimsonWeltall]

Part of this is how you define the Church. The Church is people like Queen Prawn and myself.

 

Most references to "The Church" refer to the institution (leadership like the Pope, Cardinals, priests, etc), not the average Catholic follower.

[BobDylan]

Bob,

Part of this is how you define the Church. The Church is people like Queen Prawn and myself. Does a dozen artists taint the entire artistic community?

 

One artist can taint the entire artist community. I'm not sure what you're trying to say though.

 

Besides pedophiles that may dislike hearing a message that abuse is wrong, how does it hurt anyone? Should Americans stop doing anything about torture around the world because we tortured prisoners?

 

No, but that's phsyical pain. That's walking the fine line of life and death.

 

Walk me through this.

 

Artist creates work. The public is outraged and it is decided that that work clearly crossed a boundary that shouldn't be crossed. Another artist is working in the same area, is it wrong to speak out before she starts or do we wait again for that work?

 

Somebody probably should step in, but somebody should also ask the artist if they've learned from the others work. If they're trying to better it, put a valid message behind it. And in one case, the art was already created. There's grounds for what to expect in such case. If the art is put in a drawer and never given the time of day, you'll never know how people will take to it. Don't people benefit from that? You're censoring this art without even knowing the message behind it. That is wrong.

 

As far as not knowing, it will depend on the media being used. A film maker better have a pretty good idea before starting, someone who creates in the digital world would not.

 

Filmmakers do a lot of leg work, yes, but the editing and revision process generally throws much of that ground work out the window.

 

It's not there because the artist says it isn't there? Are you telling me that the only interpretation that is valid is the artists? Isn't part of art how it captures and influences individual people. If I laugh and someone else cries at a painting, is one person wrong?

 

No the artists interpretation isn't the only one valid, but it's usually not difficult to see what the artist is trying to do. I'm talking mostly about the story form, however. And how the reader/watcher is influenced by the film is quite subjective. That's out of the artists hands. If somebody laughs at something I made that was supposed to be serious, fine. That probably means I made a mistake in my work somewhere. But it doesn't mean I have to accept their opinion, it doesn't mean I have to change my work. But if I choose not to grow from their interpretation, that's my loss.

 

Only the artist will know the "true" meaning behind it, but it's their job to make sure everyone else can understand it (thus making all interpretations valid). When one laughs and the other cries, the artist obviously didn't do a good enough job -- or the people viewing the art just don't know what the hell they're doing, or we've just got a case of a person with a wild sense of humor. I've laughed during movies when people die before, so have others. Doesn't mean I don't understand what's going on though.

Edited January 27, 2007 by BobDylan

[Texsox]

If someone needs to know what they are doing to appreciate someone's art, then the artist hasn't done their job, not the other way around. I thought art was about conveying meaning, moving people either emotionally or physically.

 

99.99% of the Church worldwide, both lay people and clergy, are outraged at what the Church allowed to happen and covered up. If the good people of the Church are taking over and condemning that practice, isn't that a good thing? Why should 99.99% of the people remain silent and .001% in effect be the ones that are talking? Isn't that admitting defeat and allowing the guilty to take over?

 

You can censor without meaning. The most obvious example is child pornography. No meaning in the world will allow that. If you always allow the artist to create and display, there are no boundaries. So you would have to reject the whole testing boundaries argument. We also open an unenforceable situation where you can't stop me, that's not what I meant. That child in bondage represents the new Iraqi government and that missile shaped object next to his butt is Iran. Of course that segues into the "community values" argument that we will both agree is crap.

 

Editing yes, but rarely would a filmmaker start with a movie about a honeymoon in Vegas and wind up with a summer camp horror movie. But we're splitting hairs here and non productive.

 

Back to the true meaning. With the mystery of the creative process, do you always know where your inspiration is coming from? If you don't know what is truly inspiring a work, how do you even know the meaning? Further to the point, it is a rare an artist doesn't view a work differently years after creating it. So meaning becomes fluid in the synopsis of our brains.

[BobDylan]

If someone needs to know what they are doing to appreciate someone's art, then the artist hasn't done their job, not the other way around. I thought art was about conveying meaning, moving people either emotionally or physically.

 

Tex, you've apparently never seen any art that's outside the commercial world. Art can be created for certain audiences too. Sometimes a project is made only for other artists, or people who know the process, the pains of creating, etc. There is art that is not meant for the mainstream. I've seen plenty of art I had no chance of understanding just because I didn't understand that form of art. To form an opinion on something I don't understand is just ignorance. And I should mention, a lot of this "underground" art, has tackled issues such as this. And gone beyond it, too. Yet, nobody was seriously offended. Why not? Are artists just naturally open minded? Or because the art was for a closed audience, made so other artists can get ideas and take it to a mainstream world where the non artistic variety can understand it? I don't know, but it's there, and nobody seems to be throwing a fit about it. Perhaps, I don't know...because they understand the artist isn't trying to offend people, but rather open a new door for other artists? Or maybe because the artist is just trying to create a debate?

 

99.99% of the Church worldwide, both lay people and clergy, are outraged at what the Church allowed to happen and covered up. If the good people of the Church are taking over and condemning that practice, isn't that a good thing? Why should 99.99% of the people remain silent and .001% in effect be the ones that are talking? Isn't that admitting defeat and allowing the guilty to take over?

 

Because people are lazy? What are YOU doing about this film?

 

You can censor without meaning. The most obvious example is child pornography. No meaning in the world will allow that. If you always allow the artist to create and display, there are no boundaries. So you would have to reject the whole testing boundaries argument. We also open an unenforceable situation where you can't stop me, that's not what I meant. That child in bondage represents the new Iraqi government and that missile shaped object next to his butt is Iran. Of course that segues into the "community values" argument that we will both agree is crap.

 

So if somebody wrote a story and one of the characters was into child porn, it's wrong? That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. TAKE ART IN CONTEXT. You act as if these artists are just filming a rape scene and only a rape scene and putting it out. For the love of God, that's not what's happening.

 

Back to the true meaning. With the mystery of the creative process, do you always know where your inspiration is coming from? If you don't know what is truly inspiring a work, how do you even know the meaning? Further to the point, it is a rare an artist doesn't view a work differently years after creating it. So meaning becomes fluid in the synopsis of our brains.

 

Generally I don't know where my inspiration comes from. Most artists don't, and if any do, they're damn lucky. Stephen King wrote in his book "On Writing" (a book about the craft of writing) that if you wait for inspiration, you'll never get anything done. He's right.

 

And you learn the meaning through revision (at least in writing). It starts with a vague idea. For instance, "I'm going to write about................Howard Hughes." The first draft of a story is just getting all the ideas out. They generally come in a fluid motion. You might start with a scene, and that spurs on other ideas and then that spurs even more ideas. Writing is an exploration. The first draft is essentially one big pile poop on a piece of paper. From there, you pick out the things that don't really mean anything, you find the story that's really being told, and then you go back to sculpting the story. This process can go on forever. It can take 1 day, it can take 20 years. I've been writing a story for 5 years now and I still haven't figured out what I'm really trying to say. Until I do, I can't really finish the story.

Edited January 27, 2007 by BobDylan

[Texsox]

When my resources were different I suppported several artists through grants and gifts, so I've seen plenty of non commercial art. All would produce some emotional or physical reaction. You speak of understanding. Each person walks away with their understanding. It doesn't have to match what the artist believes it to be. When you are experiencing a work of art, it is a singular moment in time and space. You and the artist can not occupy that same space, so each reality has to be different. Once an artist steps away from the work, it becomes the worlds.

 

I think the audience has a responsibility to experience the work as the artist intends, I refuse to judge a painting, for example, by looking at a photograph. Same with any sculpture. The interplay of light means so much in those venues and to see a flat lit, two dimensional "mis"-representation is unfair.

 

This links back to your last paragraph. If you (not necessarily you, but in general) don't know the inspiration, how can the artist really know the true meaning? You could have a past life that is coming through. An experience that is being reveiled. We may think we know why we have done something, but it isn't always a match.

 

Help me with your context point. Show me something that is clearly forbidden in our society, that could be OK in the proper context? And this really all comes down to boundaries and limits. I believe in them, that they can be absolute, and can be set ahead of time. You believe boundaries exist to tell us if an artist has crossed the boundary, but they should be free to cross whatever boundary, and we'll worry about the effects and affects, later.

 

What am I doing? First I'm defending my right, through my Church, to speak out. When I see myself being told I can not speak out because some idiot broke the law and another person covered it up, it seems wrong. When one billion people are told to STFU because of a handful of people who should burn in hell, I'm going to stick up for my free speech rights.

 

But honestly, getting a glimpse into your thinking on art and it's interpretation is far more interesting than this movie.

[SleepyWhiteSox]

/twiddles thumbs

 

...

[BobDylan]

When my resources were different I suppported several artists through grants and gifts, so I've seen plenty of non commercial art. All would produce some emotional or physical reaction. You speak of understanding. Each person walks away with their understanding. It doesn't have to match what the artist believes it to be. When you are experiencing a work of art, it is a singular moment in time and space. You and the artist can not occupy that same space, so each reality has to be different. Once an artist steps away from the work, it becomes the worlds.

 

I think the audience has a responsibility to experience the work as the artist intends, I refuse to judge a painting, for example, by looking at a photograph. Same with any sculpture. The interplay of light means so much in those venues and to see a flat lit, two dimensional "mis"-representation is unfair.

 

I'm a writer, and I guess I've failed, to some extent, to mention that I'm explaining some "theories" behind writing. Not so much the other arts. Writing goes through drafts, and these drafts go through a small audience before they even come close to the mainstream. If somebody had crossed the line, hopefully the small audience reading the various drafts would tell the writer. I understand film pretty well (it goes through a lot of drafts and small audiences as well), but the other mediums not so much. Painting, photography, etc...I'm not schooled in. Now, back to what I said about the small audiences. For film, it starts with the screenwriter. The drafting process can be different with film. Sometimes (most of the time, actually), especially with big company films, it's the director writing the revisions at the request of the production company. The writer is told to go away. If you're Charlie Kaufman, it's the writer and director talking about the changes that need to be made and the production company is basically told, "you either take what we have or you don't get it at all." If you know who Charlie Kaufman is, you might have noticed his stories are air tight. There are obvious flaws in cutting the writer out. The production companies (and even if you have a highly egotistical or well established director such as Martin Scorsesse) are basically taking the "art" out of the film by cutting the writer out. Sure, there are other elements such as lighting, cinematics and all of the aesthetics, but the ground of every film is the story. If you don't have a good story, you have a bad movie no matter how good it looks. Now, when you cut the writer out and rewrite it on your own, you lose the original man, the guy that truly knows what the story is about. You deny him the right to revise and perfect his story. If you write novels, they don't cut out the original writer. They might tell him to make revisions, but it's the original writer making those changes. This is imporant because the writer can still revise and keep his orignial vision intact (most times).

 

Yes, once it's out there, it's out of the artists hand. But at least with novella's, the writer can rest easy knowing he was the force mind behind it.

 

This links back to your last paragraph. If you (not necessarily you, but in general) don't know the inspiration, how can the artist really know the true meaning? You could have a past life that is coming through. An experience that is being reveiled. We may think we know why we have done something, but it isn't always a match.

 

Well, I've been inspired before. But it's extremely difficult to follow through with that inspiration. Almost every time I sit down to write a story, my idea has changed by the end. I think most writers would say the same. We don't think far ahead. We stay in the moment, put it on paper as full as we can, and from there we have to make other decisions. Would this character do this right now? Would this character say this now? How can I get this character out of this sticky situation and not go out of the characters elements? How can I make it believeable? That said, it's almost impossible to create a fake story that sticks with the original idea. If you don't believe me, think of a story that would be interesting to read and try to write it all the way through while holding true to the original idea. As I said before, writing is an exploration. We've got to learn our characters as we write the story. Sometimes we dig ourselves a hole and are forced to change our ideas. As we learn our characters, everything evolves from them. People would like to think plot is the most important thing for a story, and for the reader it is, but for the writer, it's the characters. The plots, themes, symbolism, they all develop behind the characters. If you write a story and don't know your characters, the story will fail miserably. It'd be kind of like trying to build a house without anything to support the frame.

 

Help me with your context point. Show me something that is clearly forbidden in our society, that could be OK in the proper context? And this really all comes down to boundaries and limits. I believe in them, that they can be absolute, and can be set ahead of time. You believe boundaries exist to tell us if an artist has crossed the boundary, but they should be free to cross whatever boundary, and we'll worry about the effects and affects, later.

 

There have been some mentioned in this thread already. Taxi Driver, Sleepers, 8mm, On the Waterfront, In Cold Blood. As I was explaining about characters, the plot and situations develop around the character and build off of each other. It's important to understand this because with this knowledge, it's easy to understand that the characters are in turn put in a box. Knowing the characters means they can only react a certain way. And, if the story is written well, the characters are changed by the end. The conflict will eventually tell the character, "If you keep going down this path, you're not going to make it." When that part of the story comes, that's when the writer has successfully taught his character a lesson. The lesson the character learned, is hopefully where the audience will relate to the story. This is what I mean by taking it in context. You've got to see what happened to these characters and see what led to the rape, see why they did it, and see what they learned from it.

 

What am I doing? First I'm defending my right, through my Church, to speak out. When I see myself being told I can not speak out because some idiot broke the law and another person covered it up, it seems wrong. When one billion people are told to STFU because of a handful of people who should burn in hell, I'm going to stick up for my free speech rights.

 

I'm not trying to censor you. I'm not telling you to shut up. If that's how I've come off, I apologize. Your opinion on this matter is certainly valid, however, we don't share the same view. I'm just trying to get you to see it through my eyes.

 

You're not a bad person because a few people within your church (mine too) screwed up. But I don't think an artist should censor his work because of religious beliefs. Most artists aren't religious in the slightest and could not care less about the church. I'm not sure what point I'm trying to make, but I don't think art and church should ever really tell each other what to do. Regardless of who's telling who.

 

But honestly, getting a glimpse into your thinking on art and it's interpretation is far more interesting than this movie.

 

I love to write. I'm enjoying explaining what I can to you. I'm learning a lot about myself, my own process, my own goals, etc. as I explain it to you. And if SoxTalk admins gives me the go ahead, I'll be able to feature a story about when I chose the Sox over the Cubs on the front page. (It'll probably be an early draft of the story, but I'd be happy that one of my first small audiences is a large community of Sox fans. I can't ask for better critics than that so I can re-examine the story for my rewrites. )

[Texsox]

Almost every group has a social commentary. It is the NRA telling us what gun laws we should have. The Sierra Club telling us how to protect the environment. Artists commenting on every human experience. And the Church commenting on social and moral issues. They all are tossed into the mix. You wouldn't expect the NRA to stop because a NRA member used a firearm illegally, or if the Sierra Club had a member who worked for a company that polluted. Why some people are threatened by the Church speaking out on moral grounds, but can tolerate other groups and their dissenting views, doesn't make sense to me. And it is ironic that the Catholic Church owns arguably one of the greatest collections of art anywhere. So the Church supporting the arts is a long and deep tradition.

 

As you can probably tell I have sat and listened to debates on the meaning behind art and the artists inspiration. My writing is more utilitarian. Writing outdoors articles for various small publications, newspaper stuff, and now writing a newsletter for Scouters. I don't consider it art. Just communications.

 

What shapes my view and over all theory on creativity could be rooted in the phrase "giving birth" to a work of art. Like giving birth to a kid, the artist has lost control once it is exhibited, no matter what the audience. So if society does draw an absolute line, it has to be enforced in the beginning, not in the end. Once Pandora's box is open, it can't be closed.

 

The tension in all this is the relationship between the artist and the audience. As you are siding with the artists and I the audience. I wrote a feature for a newspaper once on what was said and what it means. One of the lines that struck a nerve and actually drew a response was

 

The artist said "the audience can't understand my work" it means the work sucked.

 

I had seen too many artists complain about the audience when, in fact, their work sucks. I have amended that belief and now would say the work appeals to a very narrow audience, perhaps just himself. How many artists have you met that loath the audience? The hate the unwashed masses that can't grasp their art, but crave the accolades, the feedback. A good audience brings themselves to the art. I believe an artist that believes that theirs is the one true interpretation has taken the audience out of the equation, and that doesn't reflect reality. There is a singular point in time and place when someone is experiencing the work. No two object can occupy the same space at the same time. Meaning changes with time. It also dismisses what the audience brings to the experience. They are not blank tablets. They have had their experiences. Their vocabulary, their vision (actually how well they see color and shapes).

 

I agree that cutting out the original visionary in any work is fraught with danger and almost always results in a degradation of the project. There may be some value in someone schooled in the new medium to help with the process. But for the most past give me the original. You didn't mention this example but it hits hard to this point, I much prefer a well crafted song being sung poorly by the writer, then well by someone who paid for the song with money and not their blood, sweat, toil, and tears.

 

Context is important, actually critical, from a quality of work standpoint but not from a legal point of view. Taking the stuff that society tells us we can not produce, I'll continue to use child porn because it is one of the few absolutes we have. No matter what the context, you can't show penetration with a minor. We have censored that up front, everyone knows it, it's a line that can not be crossed. We do not allow the artist to produce that work and then judge. We know in advance, it's wrong and you are going to jail. If society found other absolutes, they would have to be similarly enforced. Not after the fact, but clearly spelled out before.

 

Every person self-censors, some better than others. Every person has a belief about a higher power. Some believe that their is a high power and that guides their behavior. Some believe their is no higher power and that guides their behavior. Why should society be told to only listen to those who believe that there is no higher power? What makes their beliefs on moral issues superior to all others?

[BobDylan]

Almost every group has a social commentary. It is the NRA telling us what gun laws we should have. The Sierra Club telling us how to protect the environment. Artists commenting on every human experience. And the Church commenting on social and moral issues. They all are tossed into the mix. You wouldn't expect the NRA to stop because a NRA member used a firearm illegally, or if the Sierra Club had a member who worked for a company that polluted. Why some people are threatened by the Church speaking out on moral grounds, but can tolerate other groups and their dissenting views, doesn't make sense to me. And it is ironic that the Catholic Church owns arguably one of the greatest collections of art anywhere. So the Church supporting the arts is a long and deep tradition.

 

I don't ever expect the various groups around the world to stop expressing their views. However, I think there is a point in time where they have to accept that their views aren't shared by all and shut up. In politics, this is widespread. People will express their opinions, but really add no grounds to it, and then shun the opposing view and not even really listen to it. They're set in, "You're wrong."

 

As you can probably tell I have sat and listened to debates on the meaning behind art and the artists inspiration. My writing is more utilitarian. Writing outdoors articles for various small publications, newspaper stuff, and now writing a newsletter for Scouters. I don't consider it art. Just communications.

 

This is really interesting. My dad is a public relations journalist, I write creativly. His writing is certainly to communicate. He doesn't consider his work art. But when he asks about my work, my process and everything that goes into it, he considers it art. He considers creative writing a much more difficult task because it goes beyond just communicating. A creative writer has their imagination to deal with, which, as people go through school and work, it is usually zapped and taken away. And they have their own personal experiences, which are most important to a creative writer. They've got to examine, re-examine and live in past moments that sometimes they enjoy doing, especially for the moments that were monumental and happy in their life, but there are also the dark times that nobody likes to revisit. Everyone has those moments. I don't remember who said it, I believe it was Kafka, but he said, and I'm paraphrasing "the key to my work is knowing how to control my depression. When I write, I'm terribly depressed. When I stop writing, I can flick a switch in my head and snap back into reality." I've experienced this to a point. I've written, or attempted rather, stories about the dark times in my life. As they build, I find myself growing depressed with every word. It's because in order to write a good story, I have to examine everything as full as possible right down to the can of coke that was on the coffee table when the most terrible of all moments happened. And, if I want any good commentary to go with the piece, I have to rediscover that terrible mind frame I once had. I have to ask myself, "What was I feeling?" But also, why do writers write these stories? What good does it do anyone? Well, I always tell people because I have something to say. Maybe my work will make the difference for somebody, and even if it's only for one person, then I know I've done something. I suppose that is just a form of communication. And certainly, it is. But, why don't you consider communication an art? Without language, where would our society be today? If it didn't evolve and grow, would we have anything close to what we have today? And what about the way people speak, their dialect? Why isn't retelling stories, through our language, an art?

 

I reliaze I may be off base. Are you saying that your writing isn't art? Or all writing isn't art?

 

What shapes my view and over all theory on creativity could be rooted in the phrase "giving birth" to a work of art. Like giving birth to a kid, the artist has lost control once it is exhibited, no matter what the audience. So if society does draw an absolute line, it has to be enforced in the beginning, not in the end. Once Pandora's box is open, it can't be closed.

 

Depends on what kind of art, I'd say. Books and movies are generally "pitched" ideas before they're anything else, even a screenplay or manuscript.

 

The tension in all this is the relationship between the artist and the audience. As you are siding with the artists and I the audience. I wrote a feature for a newspaper once on what was said and what it means. One of the lines that struck a nerve and actually drew a response was

 

The artist said "the audience can't understand my work" it means the work sucked.

 

I had seen too many artists complain about the audience when, in fact, their work sucks. I have amended that belief and now would say the work appeals to a very narrow audience, perhaps just himself. How many artists have you met that loath the audience? The hate the unwashed masses that can't grasp their art, but crave the accolades, the feedback. A good audience brings themselves to the art. I believe an artist that believes that theirs is the one true interpretation has taken the audience out of the equation, and that doesn't reflect reality. There is a singular point in time and place when someone is experiencing the work. No two object can occupy the same space at the same time. Meaning changes with time. It also dismisses what the audience brings to the experience. They are not blank tablets. They have had their experiences. Their vocabulary, their vision (actually how well they see color and shapes).

 

This is interesting as well. I used to hate my audience, but that was only because my writing was bad. And it was, leave no doubt about that. It wasn't until I started listening to what they were telling me did it get better. Columbia College Chicago preaches our audiences and says all feedback is good, but you're still the artist and you can pick and choose which feedback is helpful, which is not. In writing stories, the various drafts go through so many people and so many opinions that you HAVE to pick and choose which feedback works and which doesn't. There is no possible way to please everyone, especially when you put it into the mainstream, where, theoretically millions of people are reading the work. And yes, once it's in the mainstream, the art stands on its own. However, criticism is still plenty valid at that point. Why? Because they can take it and impliment it into their next work. Most writers second books are better than their first. Why? Because they learn from the mistakes they made in their first book.

 

I agree that cutting out the original visionary in any work is fraught with danger and almost always results in a degradation of the project. There may be some value in someone schooled in the new medium to help with the process. But for the most past give me the original. You didn't mention this example but it hits hard to this point, I much prefer a well crafted song being sung poorly by the writer, then well by someone who paid for the song with money and not their blood, sweat, toil, and tears.

 

I agree with that, and I can provide a pretty concrete example of what you're saying about music. Bob Dylan. His voice can make your ears bleed at times, but his poetry is much more meaningful than his voice.

 

Context is important, actually critical, from a quality of work standpoint but not from a legal point of view. Taking the stuff that society tells us we can not produce, I'll continue to use child porn because it is one of the few absolutes we have. No matter what the context, you can't show penetration with a minor. We have censored that up front, everyone knows it, it's a line that can not be crossed. We do not allow the artist to produce that work and then judge. We know in advance, it's wrong and you are going to jail. If society found other absolutes, they would have to be similarly enforced. Not after the fact, but clearly spelled out before.

 

If the penetration is actually shown, and I mean shown how they would in a XXX film, then yes, I totally agree that it's wrong. But film has the benefit of being selective with what they show. If the idea is presented somewhere in the film, but not actually shown, I don't see a problem with it.

 

Every person self-censors, some better than others. Every person has a belief about a higher power. Some believe that their is a high power and that guides their behavior. Some believe their is no higher power and that guides their behavior. Why should society be told to only listen to those who believe that there is no higher power? What makes their beliefs on moral issues superior to all others?

 

Some artists believe in the church, others don't. Where I go to school, the general populous does not. This is different everywhere. If a religious man wants to write a religous story, fantastic. I'll read it. If somebody who believes there is no god and wants to write about that, fantastic as well. I'll read that too. However, I don't think either should tell either party what they can write and what they can't. I don't believe anyone is truly morally superior to the next person, be it an artist, church goer or a murderer. We've grown up in a society where there is right and wrong, but as Dostoevsky wrote, "If there is no God, everything is permitted." That is to say, if nobody believed in a higher power, what would be the motivation behind right and wrong? Would there be any? If there is no God, is there right and wrong, period?

[Texsox]

Not in order, but to answer a couple points, I do not consider my writing art, I do consider most fiction and even some stuff in my area as art. I'm trying to convey information in the most direct way possible and doing my best to write interpretation out of it. I need a wide audience to come away with the exact same information and understanding. This kind of writing is so much easier. Almost anyone with expertise in a field can have a book published. Non fiction is almost easy in that regard. Fiction? I would hate to try and figure out how many wind up gathering mold and how many get published.

 

I am surprised by your first line. Shut up if you're the minority opinion? I can't accept that. In this case, with a billion Catholics world wide, I guess the Church doesn't have to worry too much about that. But I'd defend almost anyone in expressing their views. I have not objected to others expressing their views, I've objected to those who wish to silence the Church.

 

You are correct, you have to listen to other opinions and have your ideas and beliefs tested from time to time.

 

Of course I would not share your last paragraph. I don't need to know anything about the author to enjoy or not enjoy his work. So his belief structure isn't important to how I few the work. Frankenstein is a great work regardless if it was written by a 23 year old female on her first novel, or a 60 year old man with 23 books to his credit.

 

I can think of a time when an idea is presented but not shown and I would still object to it. If for example the film was to glorify the mass murders at Columbine, to hold them up as heroes, I'd have a problem with that. I'm certain that most everyone could provide an example.

 

Ideas are powerful, if you didn't believe that you wouldn't, or shouldn't, be an author. Ideas are all you have. Well maybe not all, but that's a big part of the job.

[BobDylan]

I am surprised by your first line. Shut up if you're the minority opinion? I can't accept that. In this case, with a billion Catholics world wide, I guess the Church doesn't have to worry too much about that. But I'd defend almost anyone in expressing their views. I have not objected to others expressing their views, I've objected to those who wish to silence the Church.

 

Not at all. I was pointing my finger at the larger groups, the larger people. The one's that can overpower the minority opinion just because they're larger, they're known, and they're in a sense, powerful. The church is preaching it's beliefs on others. That, I feel is wrong. This film has controversy, but it doesn't cross the line in my mind. I realize what the church is arguing against, and I'd back them in that regard, but they're going about it wrong. They're picking out a piece of material that doesn't have any wrong doing in it. Perhaps they're trying to make themselves look better in light of recent events? I don't know, that's a pretty powerful statement and I don't have enough information to back that up. Either way, my stance, right now, is that the Church should keep quiet until something truly does cross the line. When there's no debate about it.

 

Of course I would not share your last paragraph. I don't need to know anything about the author to enjoy or not enjoy his work. So his belief structure isn't important to how I few the work. Frankenstein is a great work regardless if it was written by a 23 year old female on her first novel, or a 60 year old man with 23 books to his credit.

 

You'll almost always know more about the work if you know the artist. Frankenstein might be a great work on its own, but what kind of parallels can you draw to the author? You'll know more about the story that way. But it's not essential. I prefer to know as much about the story as I can. I tend to read and study the books craft more than I look for things that I can relate to myself. Maybe that's because I'm a writer and I'm trying to "steal" ideas and make them my own.

 

I can think of a time when an idea is presented but not shown and I would still object to it. If for example the film was to glorify the mass murders at Columbine, to hold them up as heroes, I'd have a problem with that. I'm certain that most everyone could provide an example.

 

I don't disagree with that. And I think the artists way of stepping around (not that they'd want to glorify the murderers anyway) that is to just show it as is. Elephant by Gus Van Sant is void of a plot line, but still convey's the shootings. United 93 is the same way. One film I'd argue as glorifying the murderers is Schindler's List. But Spielberg steps around that too. He teaches his Nazi character a lesson.

 

Ideas are powerful, if you didn't believe that you wouldn't, or shouldn't, be an author. Ideas are all you have. Well maybe not all, but that's a big part of the job.

 

Certainly. Ideas and experiences are every creative writers best friend. Combine that with skills, a writer is golden.

 

Not in order, but to answer a couple points, I do not consider my writing art, I do consider most fiction and even some stuff in my area as art. I'm trying to convey information in the most direct way possible and doing my best to write interpretation out of it. I need a wide audience to come away with the exact same information and understanding. This kind of writing is so much easier. Almost anyone with expertise in a field can have a book published. Non fiction is almost easy in that regard. Fiction? I would hate to try and figure out how many wind up gathering mold and how many get published.

 

I just realized that creative non-fiction is rather difficult as well. I couldn't even imagine writing In Cold Blood. But maybe someday I will. I'm taking a creative non-fiction class this semester to see if I like it, to see how I can use it with fiction and because there are plenty of non-fiction stories that I've wanted to write, but have struggled sticking with the facts instead of letting my imagination take over.

Edited January 29, 2007 by BobDylan