For example, consider web design. Ignoring the programming aspect of it, anything on the web is designed keeping in mind the content that will be contained on the page. If it is purely written content, the primary objective is to provide the reader with an "environment" that contains no distractions irrespective of how many and what kind of widgets feature on the sidebar(s). The font has to be legible and stylistic at the same time, each post should be clearly demarcated from the next, keywords of the post should be visible to the reader as well as to any search engines that might crawl the page.
Keeping all this in mind, any insights I can and will provide will pertain to striking a fine balance between principle and technique, or requirement and style. However, the same cannot be said of art or creative writing because products in such arenas are products despite any disregard they may have expressed toward principle/technique because they are expressions of individual beliefs and tastes. In such cases, what is insight? I cannot say without a perfect knowledge of the subjective perspectives involved, and even then, things like the indeterminacy of translation limit the "quantity" of insight I am in a position to provide.
However, the necessity of insight persists because, in the absence of such information, development on the copy is impossible. In retrospect, this points to a consequential sort of lack-of-originality amongst those who employ another author's mythos to base their own works upon; at least, it is so that there is only any scalar development and no directional development: the plot will move forward in time or in space, but it will not move in any direction in terms of the ideological elements that it espouses.
For example, if I were a fan of Ludlum's Bourne series and if I were to speak about my liking of van Lustbader's continuation of the same series, then I will be not be professing any opinion on the subject of the series' essentially abstract constituents but only on van Lustbader's writing skills. In furtherance of the same line of thought, the creations of Ludlum will go from being fictitious to being meta-fictitious; van Lustbader's books will become individuations of Ludlum's mythos but can never aspire to become one of the mythos itself.
[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="510" caption="Magritte's 'The Treachery of Images', 1928-1929, questioned the viewer's perception of reality. The picture of the pipe in this painting is only a metaphysical representation of the pipe; the pipe itself is alluded to by the comment at the bottom."]
[/caption]However, the more important deduction is that van Lustbader's works now form the basis of other subjective interpretations, thereby ensuring the propagation of the "art of authorship" as such but not of the articulated entity itself. Someday, the memory of Ludlum's works will fade; at the same time, the mortality of such memories will concern only the processes involved in the creation of the mythos (and therefore only the structured) and not the mythos itself. In other words, the mythos will lose its history but retain its form and function, or its futurity, which will persist in the works of van Lustbader.
That is the problem with structure: its cause is pure principle while its effect is pure technique. Such a particular state of being stresses on inductive memory as opposed to requiring deductive memory: insofar as deduction is concerned, the advantage of inheritable logic is present. Although the inductive nature of logic itself can be disputed, the relationships it derives its strength from are fairly ingrained into our minds because they are the foremost tools employed to deconstruct reality. Furthermore, inductive memory is essentially biological. Propagation, therefore, is limited by natural constraints. (This recourse to human memory also implies that the changing face of art is necessary for a healthy futurity.)
No comments:
Post a Comment