Re: the Gouldian 'hum' (bug). (Which I will admit I like but..)
How about the intentionalist fallacy. The intention of the artist is
not the only valid reading.
==============
Hmmm, I smell a Deconstructionist.
Well, sure, you pays your $12, and that entitles you to have your
very own interpretation of Shakespeare's "Hamlet" or GG's Goldbergs,
and nobody can take that away from you. (In the movies they say: The
projectionist has the final cut.)
But to elevate the role of the reader or the listener or the museum
browser to the equivalent role of the artist ... to teach graduate
seminars and award masters degrees in why the reader of Faulkner is
every bit as significant as Faulkner ...
It implies a future in which Wikipedia will have a wiki about Glenn
Gould, followed by 2.5 million wikis of everyone who ever listened
to Glenn Gould, and what each of them thinks of his/her listening
experience. Glenn Gould's '55 Goldbergs as Eileen Brookmeyer heard them.
The only reason some things get fixed fairly permanently in culture
is because they were created by a megalomaniacal control-freak
artist who wished to touch an audience, but who knew that the only
way he/she could achieve that was entirely and exclusively through
the artist's personal intentions.
Of interpretations other than the artist's, we traditionally have
some use for and pay some attention to reviewers and critics. From
memory alone, name four great music critics of the 19th century.
Name four beloved music, art or literature critics of the 20th
century. Permanence and greatness seem, by the wishes and
preferences of consumers themselves, to elude these temporarily
useful people. It's the artist who has a shot at enduring.
You can label anything a fallacy, but that doesn't make it fallacious.
Bob M / Massachusetts USA
_______________________________________________
F_minor mailing list
F_minor@email.rutgers.edu
https://email.rutgers.edu/mailman/listinfo/f_minor