![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Been pondering several things that cross vidding, fandom, and classes so setting them down here, might be part of a series.
Note: I'll probably not have much time to answer comments, but feel free to chatter in this post. =)
"Reception theory proposes that meaning does not lie in the film but is the result of a 'cooperative enterprise' between the producers/exhibitors of the movie and those who choose to recieve it. [...] The viewer does not impose any meaning whatsoever upon the text. Rather, the film guides the viewer's responses, initiating 'performances' of meaning. [...] Viewers 'realize' the text according to their own interests, but in order to enjoy the movie, they collaborate with the text in such a way that the spectators' interests and those of the industry coincide."
~ Dennis Giles
The argument goes on to address how a "good" movie is essentially when the creator and the audience are aligned. It's a "viewing contract" between the producer and the consumer...and how levels of 'good' is a measurement on how one aligned with the audience the product is made for. (which actually has been addressed in several earlier rants that's been revolving around in LJ)
[![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
suelac talks more about author/audience; again, a discussion that's been revolving quite alot recently, in various forms. For more discussion, and frankly for more coherent discussion, ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
metafandom is an awesome source]
This is particularly interesting however when speaking of the "low" arts; people know them as "bad" arts because of the lower quality workmanship in the art itself. In the art world, this is known as film. In the film world, this is known as the horror flick. In the horror genre, this is known as the slasher movie. And so on and so forth. (In fandom, this would probably be what is known as the FF.N fic)
However, *because* it is bad, it's easier to see cultural patterns and anxieties in the demographic that creates and consumes the art. It's directly tapping into that animal-hind-brain, the cores of recognition.
NOT that more sophisticated art doesn't tap into the same hind-brain, that same core of recognition, just that in the "low" arts the hopes and fears and anxieties of the demographic is more on the surface. In the "low" arts, it's less covered with style and craft and skill; thus the cultural Id is more easily observed.
Are all stories just a re-negotiation of trauma? Possibly. All stories are written to tell that essential something, even though the excecution of the telling may be shoddy. And that essential something is in the most lauded fic (though these fic may be of questionable critical quality) and is usually a gut-punch of some sort of angst.
I've been turning over in my head the almost essential quality of angst to the more effective fic, even if they end on a happy note. Even beyond the narrative necessity of tension and a factor unresolved; *why* is it so necessary? Notice, the novel form didn't really gain in popularity until relatively recently in history. It is perfectly *possible* for the happy PWP to be the dominant form in an art genre; just look at the Classical period of B/W Hollywood. Or in other words, what I'm trying to point out is that the angst in stories is not necessary because there are genres of stories that support stories without angst; and the more popular current genre requires that angst.
Granted, there's also other reasons why the novel form is successful. There are also other possible reasons why angst is successful.
What I'm pondering here, however, is angst's popularity in relation to comedy. Or the drama/comedy discussion. Comedy is oft noted as being *harder* to achieve; argued so because it's harder to touch the 'happy-places' of people...and I've noticed that the most successful comedic acts are instead very close to people pain-centers as well.
So. Are all stories just a re-negotiation of trauma? There's a term Freud uses for trauma called Nachtraglich Keit, which speaks of the return of the memory of trauma and realizing that it *is* one. Because *during* the trauma one can't realize the traumatic nature successfully, and still have one's wits about oneself enough to survive. As a survival tactic, the theory goes, one has to make the traumatic into the mundane; and by making it mundane one can survive. (think of soldier during and after a war) It's only later, after arriving to a place of safety, where a reminder might trigger the traumatic event, which can then most easily worked through via symbolic imagery.
In particular, symbolic imagery is necessary; because it's difficult for the mind to directly face and work through it's issues, or rather perhaps because it might be easier to work through the issues obliquely because to survive the traumatic event in the first place one has built walls and defenses to block it away. As an analogy: to heal, sometimes the wound needs to be brought to the surface and aired, but the scabs directly on the surface are too thick sometimes to be broken off from the center (that is, without further damaging the skin directly underneath), so the scabs are picked at from the edges.
Sometimes I wonder if artists aren't instinctually resistant to letting go of their trauma/insanity; because the traumatic is the source of their art and thus the source of their success. In particular, here I'm thinking of Korn (post-success), and perhaps maybe Van Gogh. Or maybe artists in general, who *has* to work closely with that abyss of trauma to be able to tap into new stories which are *effective*.
Not that I don't think some artists haven't managed to be saner because they've worked through their issues via their art. But what happens when the issue is finally confronted, and yet one still wants success? What happens when one's artistic source, one's emotional angst, is resolved?
The only thing I can come up with if one finally manages to work through one's issues on any particular subject is to turn and find yet another issue to work through; because otherwise that original issue will be dwelled on and revisited to an unhealthy degree, and in effect *re*-traumatizing oneself, or perhaps falsely traumatizing oneself. (::coughAnneRicecough::)
So, that means either self-induced insanity by way of obsessing over an imagined personality flaw to produce art, or to start at ground zero with a new style or another emotional angsting point.
Which, huh. That possibly explains Fellini. Or some artists I follow who don't have consistent work, because they're always zooming off into new artistic directions once they've established ability in what they've attempted before.
Note: I'll probably not have much time to answer comments, but feel free to chatter in this post. =)
"Reception theory proposes that meaning does not lie in the film but is the result of a 'cooperative enterprise' between the producers/exhibitors of the movie and those who choose to recieve it. [...] The viewer does not impose any meaning whatsoever upon the text. Rather, the film guides the viewer's responses, initiating 'performances' of meaning. [...] Viewers 'realize' the text according to their own interests, but in order to enjoy the movie, they collaborate with the text in such a way that the spectators' interests and those of the industry coincide."
~ Dennis Giles
The argument goes on to address how a "good" movie is essentially when the creator and the audience are aligned. It's a "viewing contract" between the producer and the consumer...and how levels of 'good' is a measurement on how one aligned with the audience the product is made for. (which actually has been addressed in several earlier rants that's been revolving around in LJ)
[
suelac talks more about author/audience; again, a discussion that's been revolving quite alot recently, in various forms. For more discussion, and frankly for more coherent discussion, metafandom is an awesome source]This is particularly interesting however when speaking of the "low" arts; people know them as "bad" arts because of the lower quality workmanship in the art itself. In the art world, this is known as film. In the film world, this is known as the horror flick. In the horror genre, this is known as the slasher movie. And so on and so forth. (In fandom, this would probably be what is known as the FF.N fic)
However, *because* it is bad, it's easier to see cultural patterns and anxieties in the demographic that creates and consumes the art. It's directly tapping into that animal-hind-brain, the cores of recognition.
NOT that more sophisticated art doesn't tap into the same hind-brain, that same core of recognition, just that in the "low" arts the hopes and fears and anxieties of the demographic is more on the surface. In the "low" arts, it's less covered with style and craft and skill; thus the cultural Id is more easily observed.
Are all stories just a re-negotiation of trauma? Possibly. All stories are written to tell that essential something, even though the excecution of the telling may be shoddy. And that essential something is in the most lauded fic (though these fic may be of questionable critical quality) and is usually a gut-punch of some sort of angst.
I've been turning over in my head the almost essential quality of angst to the more effective fic, even if they end on a happy note. Even beyond the narrative necessity of tension and a factor unresolved; *why* is it so necessary? Notice, the novel form didn't really gain in popularity until relatively recently in history. It is perfectly *possible* for the happy PWP to be the dominant form in an art genre; just look at the Classical period of B/W Hollywood. Or in other words, what I'm trying to point out is that the angst in stories is not necessary because there are genres of stories that support stories without angst; and the more popular current genre requires that angst.
Granted, there's also other reasons why the novel form is successful. There are also other possible reasons why angst is successful.
What I'm pondering here, however, is angst's popularity in relation to comedy. Or the drama/comedy discussion. Comedy is oft noted as being *harder* to achieve; argued so because it's harder to touch the 'happy-places' of people...and I've noticed that the most successful comedic acts are instead very close to people pain-centers as well.
So. Are all stories just a re-negotiation of trauma? There's a term Freud uses for trauma called Nachtraglich Keit, which speaks of the return of the memory of trauma and realizing that it *is* one. Because *during* the trauma one can't realize the traumatic nature successfully, and still have one's wits about oneself enough to survive. As a survival tactic, the theory goes, one has to make the traumatic into the mundane; and by making it mundane one can survive. (think of soldier during and after a war) It's only later, after arriving to a place of safety, where a reminder might trigger the traumatic event, which can then most easily worked through via symbolic imagery.
In particular, symbolic imagery is necessary; because it's difficult for the mind to directly face and work through it's issues, or rather perhaps because it might be easier to work through the issues obliquely because to survive the traumatic event in the first place one has built walls and defenses to block it away. As an analogy: to heal, sometimes the wound needs to be brought to the surface and aired, but the scabs directly on the surface are too thick sometimes to be broken off from the center (that is, without further damaging the skin directly underneath), so the scabs are picked at from the edges.
Sometimes I wonder if artists aren't instinctually resistant to letting go of their trauma/insanity; because the traumatic is the source of their art and thus the source of their success. In particular, here I'm thinking of Korn (post-success), and perhaps maybe Van Gogh. Or maybe artists in general, who *has* to work closely with that abyss of trauma to be able to tap into new stories which are *effective*.
Not that I don't think some artists haven't managed to be saner because they've worked through their issues via their art. But what happens when the issue is finally confronted, and yet one still wants success? What happens when one's artistic source, one's emotional angst, is resolved?
The only thing I can come up with if one finally manages to work through one's issues on any particular subject is to turn and find yet another issue to work through; because otherwise that original issue will be dwelled on and revisited to an unhealthy degree, and in effect *re*-traumatizing oneself, or perhaps falsely traumatizing oneself. (::coughAnneRicecough::)
So, that means either self-induced insanity by way of obsessing over an imagined personality flaw to produce art, or to start at ground zero with a new style or another emotional angsting point.
Which, huh. That possibly explains Fellini. Or some artists I follow who don't have consistent work, because they're always zooming off into new artistic directions once they've established ability in what they've attempted before.
Tags:
no subject
no subject
no subject
[Are all stories just a re-negotiation of trauma?]
I'd have to say, no. Some stories are explorations of identity in unfamiliar territory, some are reconceptualizations of social networks, environments, etc. But many, many stories do involve this element to great effect.
no subject
Your right I think about that it's one of the source of/purpose for art, but here:
[Are all stories just a re-negotiation of trauma?]
I'd have to say, no. Some stories are explorations of identity in unfamiliar territory, some are reconceptualizations of social networks, environments, etc. But many, many stories do involve this element to great effect.
I agree with that, but what I was rambling about in the post was more on the production-side; that the story could have other meanings, as you've listed, but that the initial impetus for an artist to actually physically realize the story in print tends more if not all towards trauma renegotiation. Sorta like writing a diary in third person, I guess, so that you can give yourself proper distance to...grieve? hope?
For instance, if I would apply this to the first HP book, it would be that classic 'Cinderella' storyline, rags-to-riches...which sorta makes sense considering how Rowling pieced the story together on napkins while waitressing while struggling to provide for her family though I couldn't say this for sure since I don't know her personally.
no subject
[that the initial impetus for an artist to actually physically realize the story in print tends more if not all towards trauma renegotiation]
And here I meant what I said above to apply to motivation, also; sometimes I write to work out an understanding of my social relationships in varying contexts, or to play out possibilities for invention in the future or an unfamiliar environment. So at least for myself, I can safely say that many but not all of or even most of my artworks are generated through trauma. It would be very reductionist to make trauma out as *the* main initiating cause of art.
One common and sadly denigrated motive for art is the appreciation of beauty, trite though that sounds. The urge to communicate a really, really good sexual encounter has prompted a lot of songs, too.*g* All this said, however, I think trauma *does* generate a huge proportion of work that people consider important art. The complicated social negotiations around desinating a work "important" are surely not adequate to address the subject conclusively, but they do bring attention to/acceptance of works that would otherwise be stigmatized for being too disturbing. Maybe the need for this protection is part of what leads us to see these kinds of artworks as more significant.
Gah. I know I'm started to babble, but it is my bedtime. I love your journal for how much you make me think.
no subject
ohhhh! ::lightbulb:: huh, I hadn't thought of that, probably 'cause of where I'm standing it also looks very much as if comedy and the 'lighter' artforms are very much looked down upon as being less advanced than the tragic. I think I'd internalized that somewhere down the line so that when I was thinking of story I meant 'meaningful/touching story' which meant 'non-comedic' which is a fallacy.
Then again, most of the things that are comedic to me have a sort of tragic or morbid air to them...which, you're right, isn't necessarily the case.
no subject
And yes, but also you're right, too. A lot of comedy seems to tap into anger or pain as well. Some comedians I can't even watch because everything they say sounds so full of obvious rage to me. Gallows humor often makes me laugh, though.
I guess to me art seems more like communication than any other thing, although that doesn't fully sum it up either. So every human experience is fodder for art, and then again we all suffer somehow, so that is a part of what we communicate a lot of the time.
Veering off, I just watched March of the Penguins, and really think humans have it easy today.*G*