this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2023
1 points (100.0% liked)
Books
1 readers
1 users here now
founded 10 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Hate it. Art is not just representative of itself, but is a snapshot of the time, culture and society it was created in. To “modernize” a piece of art is to strip away it’s context, and to diminish it’s value.
I guess the counter argument is that not all art needs to be static. It can be multiple snapshots over time, as part of a continuous process of engagement.
One of the things I like about classical lit, for instance, is that the same text can have different meanings, and be understood or consumed in different ways, throughout history. I don’t HAVE to listen to The Iliad in fragmented ancient poetry, I can read it in English (and compare translations!) or enjoy one of many adaptations it. I don’t HAVE to take the ancient view of Hektor as a second rate hero, maybe I prefer the more modern reading where he fits out current standards of “honor”. Half the fun is seeing how the snapshots differ over the ages.
Also I don't think the author gets to do that. That story isn't theirs to do as they please, it's been put out there, it belongs to everyone who's read it.
The author can do whatever they want. They are the artist. We can try to reject it, but to say it's not theirs is absurd.
its absurd and also insanely entitled
I agree with you - I censored myself from saying that part
The genie def cant go back into the bottle but I like to think all art is an on going conversation. The author cannot be excluded from the conversation just cuz their audience thinks their post creation contributions are dumb. The artist can certainly choose to abstain from the conversation, refuse to participate. Which, is really funny to me because the authors who choose that route are equally shat upon by fanbases for "avoiding accountability" to their dated creations. Thats the entitlement at work tho isnt it--damned if they do, just as damned if they dont.
A lot of artist choose not to interpret their own works, which I think is valid. They don't confirm or deny what other people get out of it. If they do want to take a stance, I think its just as valid.
A lot of writers say they don't intentionally use symbiology in their books which a lot of people interpret. Even if they don't do it on purpose, though it can be a subconscious thing. A Chekov's Gun for example is foreshadowing even if it wasn't intentional.
But it's not though. As I said in another comment, it's like when movie directors keep releasing director's cuts and ruining their own movie, or when comicbook artists retcon stories from way before with new coloring that looks like ass because "new audiences wouldn't like the old stuff".
For an author to try and grab the stuff they published, which is now out there and which people have read, and to try and rework that and change the whole of the prose, it's a shitty cash grab that more often than not takes the old stuff from circulation.
It's like when George Lucas did the whole special effects things in the original Star Wars trilogy and took the original versions from circulation, as if he was the sole arbiter of all things Star Wars and not like his work of art had entered pop culture - and, therefore, isn't just his to keep tinkering.
An author's work is very different from a filmmaker's role. An author usually works alone - the creation belongs to them entirely. An author also usually holds sole copyright and can do as they wish.