Is the right of interpretation of a work of art to the author s or the audience s? Why?

After a work is created, it is like a fetus separated from its mother's body and needs to survive independently. The work itself is more like a raw material, and the viewer's own aesthetics and experiences are the catalyst. Because each person's understanding of the same work is very different, when interpreting or appreciating a work, it is important not to impose one's own ideas on the author, but also to accept different points of view.

It is one thing to enjoy the right of free interpretation, but it is another thing to make up the 3,000-word author's mental journey in the brain of "one is a jujube tree and the other is also a jujube tree". If I were the original, I would probably jump out of the grave and beat the questioner.

It depends on the situation. If it is a film literary work, the right of interpretation is the audience, because these things are for people to see, and they are a means used by the author (director) to spread his thoughts, so the reader (audience) must understand that in this case, the audience is dominant, and a good author (director) must respect the reader (audience). If it is said to be lonely and self-appreciative, then it is the self-inflicted sentimentality of the **, at this time they dissect not the work, but themselves.

One of the attributes that a work of art should have is openness, the artist has to provide the viewer with many ideas and visions, and has the obligation to be interpreted. Otherwise, just read the synopsis of the story in the future, why do you spend so much effort watching it little by little? Many literary youths regard "Norwegian Wood" as a literary and artistic petty bourgeois reading, which has aroused the disgust of some Murakami fans.

To be honest, I also watched it as a literary ** in high school, you look at the language and dialogue there, how ambiguous, and how sad the ending is. It wasn't until I went to college that I found another English version, and little by little, I realized that his language style was actually very peaceful, and the story was also very serious and gloomy. I think I understood the central idea of the book:

The impact and reconstruction of youth values against confusion and loneliness. I did take a moment of pride in this, and I finally understood Haruki Murakami. But I feel sorry again:

How many people still read it as a literary ** and yellow book!! I have to admit that the diversity of interpretations of this book is one of the reasons for its popularity. But if you read the party constitution and the contract or something, there won't be so many interpretations, because the purpose of these things is to make you understand, and your understanding is the first priority, and it is troublesome to have interpretation.

Moreover, a work of art becomes an independent individual from the moment it is produced, and your interpretation of it has nothing to do with the author.

And he said that 50% of the art field comes from the work of art, and 50% comes from the audience, and the two add up to the reading, comprehension, and interpretation of the work of art, so the final state of a work of work is not the author's creation, but in the viewer's mind, and everyone's experience and insight are different, just like there are a thousand Hamlets for a thousand readers, and there is no right or wrong, and this is the charm of a work of art, of course, the author has the author's right to interpret, and the viewer can also have the viewer's right to interpret <> each other

First of all, let's think about the question, what is originality? Is it the writer's first manuscript, the first thought? Or is it the first time it has taken shape?

It's hard for us, and if you've ever been a creator, you should understand that feeling, often the end result is completely different from what was originally hoped for. Therefore, whether we are creators, expressionists, or audiences, we all have the right to recreate, that is, the right to elaborate. Because it would have been a ridiculous thing to go to the standard of right and wrong in art.

Of course, we need to follow a certain synaesthesia, and the synaesthesia we are talking about here is not a standard, but an instinct. For example, when you hear a strong sense of rhythm, you want to have the rhythm of the body, and it is difficult for you to be sad. When I see a picture with a fast editing speed and a large close-up scene, I tend to be nervous and oppressive.

This is some human instinctive synaesthesia, not the standard. I remember our ** appreciative teacher saying that her kindergarten children heard two dinosaurs fighting when they listened to the Symphony of Destiny, which was very interesting. <>

The right to interpret a work of art belongs to both the author and the reader.

Because, a work of art, originating from the individual, belongs to everyone.

The right to interpret literally sees what this painting reads. Of course, the audience will watch it. Even if the author finishes writing this work, he belongs to an audience. Who do you say has the right to interpret?

Half of each, and sometimes the author doesn't know what it is.

Art is a cultural phenomenon, mostly to satisfy subjective and emotional needs, and it is also a special way of entertainment in daily life. It is fundamental to the continuous creation of new beauty, through which to vent inner desires and emotions, which is a condensed and exaggerated life. Words, paintings, sculptures, architecture, dances, dramas, films, and any other act or thing that can express beauty are all art.

Artists refer to artists who have high aesthetic ability and skillful creative skills, and who are engaged in artistic creation and have certain achievements; It includes both those who specialize in creating art in the field of art, as well as those who engage in art creation outside of their profession. He is a creator of works of art that originates from nature and originates from the heart.

A work of art is an artistic product created by an artist through artistic media, through artistic experience and artistic conception.

The existence of a work of art does not depend on the fact that it has a conceptual theme. Above, we discussed the four aspects of the work: the existence of materiality, the existence of form, the existence of facts, and the existence of conceptual theme.

Now ask: If none of these aspects can constitute the existence of the work alone, then can it be said that the combination of these four aspects is the existence of the work? The question is easy.

Think of the genre of the news documentary. If we analyze a documentary, we will definitely be able to find that it also fully possesses the above four aspects, but it does not become a work of art because of this, it is still a documentary. Documentary is a craft, and the vast majority of crafts also have these four aspects.

Therefore, adding these four aspects together still does not add a work of art.