Topic started by V. Venkataramanan on Thu Jun 3 23:07:29 .
All times in EST +10:30 for IST.

º¢Ú¸¨¾ Ţš¾ ¿ñÀ÷¸§Ç,

­Ð ±ýÛ¨¼Â Ó¾ø ÓÂüº¢. ¯í¸Ç¢ý §ÁÄ¡É ¸ÕòÐ츨Çò ¦¾Ã¢Å¢ì¸×õ

¿ýÈ¢

¦Åí¸ð

Responses:

• Old responses
  
• From: Gokul (@ atl-qbu-zpg-vty79.as.wcom.net) on: Tue Jun 22 17:22:52
  
  mani:
  
  What does this mean?:-)
  
  Venkat:
  
  I wont be able to participate in this discussion now, since I am starting my vacation and also have been in the vacation mood for quite some time. Hoping to join you and others in August.
  
  
• From: maNivaNNan (@ pc-242-178.corp.3com.com) on: Tue Jun 22 18:47:11
  
  Aaaaw! Gokul, that is not fair! ;-).
  
  It was my attempt to use the dictum "what the writer had in his mind is irrelevant, what it evokes on the reader is important." Don't mind what I meant to write, what do YOU think it means? ;-)))
  
  Hey, I am beginning to like this "modern art" writing philosophy! ;-)))
  
  Mani M. Manivannan
  
  
• From: venkat (@ vectra2.riken.go.jp) on: Tue Jun 22 23:46:36
  
  Mani said
  > .
  > : :
  > { }
  > | |
  
  Dear Mani, !!?? |
  
  He also said
  
  > Hey, I am beginning to like this "modern art" > writing philosophy! ;-)))
  
  This is gross. Even the simplest landscape photo can mean different things to different people. One can see the whole beauty and the spread. Other can like the colors and another will link himself to the small leaves, etc. If there is nothing to the readers imagination, then it is a newspaper (even there Indian express thinks otherwise).
  
  
• From: maNivaNNan (@ pc-242-178.corp.3com.com) on: Wed Jun 23 19:10:33
  
  Finally! We agree on this! Yes, it is gross! It is meaningless gibberish written to make a point. The point being, in order to let the readers discover and make up meaning, the writer has to provide context. He needs to craft it. She has to work on it.
  
  Yes, "even the simplest landscape photo can mean different things to different people", whether that photo is taken by a machine or a child or an artist. And no, viewers cannot admire the colors and the leaves unless they are in the picture.
  
  I didn't write "there is nothing to the readers imagination." On the contrary, I have been arguing that the authors depend on the readers' imagination. All of us are wired differently and it takes no effort on the author's part to create different interpretation. That is the easy part.
  
  What is difficult is to create empathy for the subject the author has chosen. It is one thing for those who rebel against orthodoxy to create a deliberately diffuse, amorphous, vague text open to interpretation; it is entirely different matter to argue that open ended fiction * is * the orthodoxy.
  
  It boils down to the simple question: what is art?
  
  Mani M. Manivannan
  
  
• From: v (@ gateway.sms.siemens.com) on: Thu Jun 24 13:56:04
  
  Great reading, the story as well as the discussions..
  
  

Want to post a response?