Soaringeagle78 wrote...
hoodaticus wrote...
My interpretations of art do not depend on the intent of the artist. The art speaks for itself. Its meaning is not limited by the capacity of its creator to understand what they have created.
If a savant created a soul-shearing masterpiece on canvas, exposing the depths of the human spirit with every brushstroke, and merely thought they were drawing a plain old sunset with no hidden meaning (because of their diminished mental capacity or perhaps schizophrenia) - the art would still carry all the themes it reflected.
Artist intent is irrelevant. If I blindfold myself and spatter paint randomly, if I pull my mask off and find I have painted an erotic love scene - then that's what the painting is. Whether I know that or not.
IT is the best explanation for this ending no matter what Bioware says about it. Its truth is not dependent on EC. EC can only obsolete IT by providing an even more convincing explanation.
Well, my interpretations of art do depend on the intent of the artist. If I try to draw a square and someone sees a circle, not only would that make me a terrible artist of squares, but it also means that it was always supposed to be a square, not a circle. That person can believe that it's a circle all they want even if all evidence says that it's closer to a circle. I'll side with the artist on this one.
Saying that IT is the best possible explanation may work for you, but for me, it doesn't. By declaring that IT is true, you're also making it an absolute, which it isn't. It may turn out to be true, or it may not.
The artist interpretation only matters while the art is still in their head. Once it's worked into a medium, it has become objective reality that even the artist must respect - even if it violates their own vision.
If I write a beautifully architected program, and my intent is that it do task x, if it in fact does y, then y is the meaning of the program - not x.
My creations often fail to reflect my vision. That's why an entire team of Quality Assurance professionals go behind me and test my work.
I determine truth based on the evidentiary standards I was trained to use while earning my Doctorate of Jurisprudence. The evidence for IT is sufficiently greater than the evidence against it that it would undoubtedly win if the two were pitted against each other in a civil trial. IT theorists have at least two dozen pieces of evidence in support for IT, and the opposition offers little more than the hearsay intent of the artist - an artist who has refused to confirm or deny IT.
That is why IT is true.
You have the right to weigh the facts for yourself and determine differently. Disagreements in the weighing of evidence are why we have juries.
Modifié par hoodaticus, 18 mai 2012 - 02:35 .
Retour en haut
