becoming

1. Karen

   Interesting…. I don’t really know a lot of people who like to “create” (except noise) but everybody loves 靚仔靚女…. anyhow, I believe interpretation does require a bit of thinking and creativity…

   Apr 5th, 2006

2. Peggy

   我們不會注明文字的”朗讀者”,但當文字轉為劇本﹐演繹的便叫”演員”。

   Refer to 一篇講道時﹐我們不是用”講員” 而不是”作者”嗎﹖

   Apr 6th, 2006

3. edmund

   Exactly！我的問題就是如此：「劇本」是創作，「演員」也應該是！所以每次演出，管它是一樣的劇本、佈景、燈光；每次的演出都應該是一種創作。如此引伸，每次我們看相同的DVD，又是否創作？

   讀者、聽眾、觀眾，是否真的完全被動？還是創作的一部份？

   再引伸，文字、音樂的本身離開了演繹的人和接收的人有否獨立的意義？換句話說，離開了演繹者和受眾，文本有否獨立意義？

   Apr 6th, 2006

4. Andrew Lai

   I would say the singer is can also be regarded as part of a “creation”. Simply because a top-notch singer can give a dramatically different presentation/experience to the audience vs. someone whose can hardly sing a complete verse.
   A complete presentation of a song is comprise of the lyrics, melody and the singer. The audience is not part of the presentation because the song doesn’t change with different audience as long as the melody/lyric/singer remains the same.

   Apr 6th, 2006

5. edmund

   But my arguement is that the song DOES change with different audience! Everyone brings their life experiences to the studio, concert theatre, etc., when listening to the presentation. Listening to What a wonderful world as a 80 year-old can be very much different than a 20 year-old.

   Apr 7th, 2006

6. Karen

   Isn’t the art a media for communication and interaction between people (the composer, the performer and the audience?). The composer creates the framework in which the performer can interpret and follow, the performer presents the music to the audience in the way he/she interprets it, then the audience receive with their own interpretation as well. I think without interpretation any artwork makes no sense. The composer is trying to send a message to us and under normal circumstances (except Glenn Gould whom I can think of) the performer tries to keep his interpretation as original as he possibly can.

   Apr 8th, 2006

7. edmund

   Who would have thought, this post will generate so many responses!

   This is getting interesting. When Karen said that “without interpretation any artwork makes no sense”, how about the Bible?

   Does the Bible requires interpretation in order to make any sense? In other words, when we speak about the revelation of God, does the Bible becomes “God’s word” ONLY when it interact with the reader (or listener), or is it God’s word on its own?

   Apr 8th, 2006

8. Stephen

   Interesting topic indeed! I would like to take a share/share something as well. I strongly agree that interpretation is a creative process and is an essential element in the life of a work of art, i.e. creation-perception-interpretation. Every great work of art(painting, music, literature etc.) should have an evolving life open to interpretation. However, the term interpretation in its usual sense in music or drama is more about performance of the score or script, which is actually part of the perception stage. The music represented by the score of a Polanaise by Chopin is a work of art. The performance/’interpretation’ of the score by Kissin is equally a work of art because of its aesthetic nature(human touch is the key). The two completes the creation-perception stages. Reading a piece of literature by any person also completes the creation-perception stages, yet beacause of the lack of aesthetic nature of reading itself, the reading cannot be considered as a work of art. A DVD/CD is only a mechanical reproduction of the performance of a work of art, therefore it is not a work of art except for the packaging design.

   To me, the interpretation stage is actually the analysis or understanding of the piece, like a commentary or critique. That applies to any artform and is a creative prcess to give new meaning to the work of art. A commentary/critique, however, is not a work of art because of the lack of aesthetic nature.

   To me, the Bible, like any written work and just like the life of an artwork (BTW, art is just a process to convey ideas)needs to have the 3 stages of creation-perception-interpretation to have its meaning of existence. God’s word is God’s word, like any written word by men has its undeniable nature as word itself, but it has no meaning of existence if it is not recieved or understood(interpreted) by a single soul. But that is just a hypothesis not allowed in God’s masterplan.

   Apr 9th, 2006

9. edmund

   “yet because of the lack of aesthetic nature of reading itself, the reading cannot be considered as a work of art.” – Why? And what you do mean by aesthetic nature? Are you referring to the audio/visual aspects of it?

   And not 100% sure what you mean by your last sentence, “But that is just a hypothesis not allowed in God’s masterplan.”

   Apr 10th, 2006

10. Stephen

    What I meant was: in the process of reading a piece of literature the reader has not added any aesthetic quality to the piece. When you read something, the words are percieved by your eyes and the meaning of the words is then immediately understood, analysed, interpreted by the brain. So among all the arts, the perception stage of literature is the shortest. It jumps immediately to the interpretation stage. I think performing arts are unique in a way they need ‘performance’/ ‘interpretation’ (not to be confused with interpretation as in the creation-perception-interpretation process) to be a completed work of art. In fact, from the composer to the audience or critic, the are 2 cycles of creation-perception-interpretation processes: 1)the composer creates(creation) the score, the performer reads(perception) the score, he/she analyse(interpretation) the score; 2) the performer plays(creation) the score, the audience listen(perception) to the music, the audience is touched and admires the beautiful ideas(interpretation) conveyed by the performance.

    Regarding ‘aethetic nature’, it should refer to certain quality that is beyond utility that points to goodness. Recital has aesthetic quality, reading does not. You say someone recites beautifully, but never someone reads(I mean read to one’s heart in order to understand the words) beautifully. Also, as I mentioned previously, human touch is essential in art. Certain technique is required. Therefore Midi or DVD cannot be a work of art because of its mechanical nature.

    Regarding my last sentence, I believe that God would not allow His Word be given out without Man recieving and understanding it(Psalms 19).

    Apr 10th, 2006

11. edmund

    I see what you mean. Just that I thought the reader can have his/her “complete” cycle of creation-perception-interpretation when reading a book as well. The only difference is that it is done all within the same person.

    As for the second part, so are you saying that the Bible becomes the Word of God only when it is received and understood by humans?

    Apr 10th, 2006

12. Stephen

    I think the creator of a piece of literature is strictly the author and not the reader, although the reader could (and should readily be able to, in case a a great piece) be creative in the interpretation stage.

    IMHO, the Bible is the Word of God no matter what, but like any word by man, it only has its meaning of being ‘word’ when the idea has been conveyed, i.e. recieved and understood by human-beings. Since God would not allow His word to be conveyed in vain, this will never happen. Therefore, His Word will always have its meaning of existence.

    Apr 11th, 2006

Reply to “演繹是否創作的一部份？”