Okay, I see your point. I imagine, for example, the creators of Sesame Street complaining about the way in which the gay community has made icons of Bert and Ernie. To my knowledge they haven't really, but I'm just using that as an example of a way in which an original creator might stifle dissent by insisting that their intended meaning is the only possible valid one.
I was thinking about this a bit during the commute home and I think maybe I need to articulate my thoughts on this with a bit more precision.
In the old model ('creativity 1.0') an artist, musician, author, etc. creates a work of art. She or he had certain things in mind (whether consciously or unconsciously -- it gets complex when you throw Surrealism into the mix) and this is what I would say is the 'meaning' of the work. Quite often there is a degree of dissent intended; it is that communication of dissent that was foremost in my mind when I adopted this notion of what a work means.
Once the creative work is published it enters the culture, where if it becomes popular a culture forms around it. There can be quite a bit of meaning expressed by the members of the fan culture -- and I want to be absolutely clear on this -- and it is just as valid as creative expression. It's distinct, but valid. Sometimes the cultural meaning conveys more dissent than the original (Bert & Ernie) but more commonly it conveys less. More commonly a creative work has to be protected *from* the culture industry.
What I'm describing as 'creativity 2.0' is a kind of new thing where artists have continual interaction with fans, and often even exposure to works of fan art, to the extent where it may be difficult or impossible to discern artist's intended meaning.
I think, too, that a work of art is distinct from an entertainment franchise... (*goes to add 'culture industry' to the tags*)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Re: part one
Date: 2010-07-12 10:33 pm (UTC)I was thinking about this a bit during the commute home and I think maybe I need to articulate my thoughts on this with a bit more precision.
In the old model ('creativity 1.0') an artist, musician, author, etc. creates a work of art. She or he had certain things in mind (whether consciously or unconsciously -- it gets complex when you throw Surrealism into the mix) and this is what I would say is the 'meaning' of the work. Quite often there is a degree of dissent intended; it is that communication of dissent that was foremost in my mind when I adopted this notion of what a work means.
Once the creative work is published it enters the culture, where if it becomes popular a culture forms around it. There can be quite a bit of meaning expressed by the members of the fan culture -- and I want to be absolutely clear on this -- and it is just as valid as creative expression. It's distinct, but valid. Sometimes the cultural meaning conveys more dissent than the original (Bert & Ernie) but more commonly it conveys less. More commonly a creative work has to be protected *from* the culture industry.
What I'm describing as 'creativity 2.0' is a kind of new thing where artists have continual interaction with fans, and often even exposure to works of fan art, to the extent where it may be difficult or impossible to discern artist's intended meaning.
I think, too, that a work of art is distinct from an entertainment franchise... (*goes to add 'culture industry' to the tags*)