selling author Umberto Eco writes in " the work process to tell "from the" Postscript to the Name of the Rose ", about how a work of art or document created or should arise here. He advances three main theses in his remarks.
The first very clear and provocative thesis is that, the author could not interpret. He should, according to Eco, only explain his motivation. One should not anticipate this step the reader , Otherwise would take the "poetic effect" completely lost. If he does not, he can always be new ways that the text (always the work of art) "non-useful" to do. His attitude is so contrary to Lukac, who is a representative of the political art. According to him, the author clearly interpreted from his political stance, his work and pretend helps the recipient to interpret. It should remain no room for other interpretations.
His next argument, like his others, is very clear, genius is 10% inspiration (of course, libidinous ..) and 90% perspiration (labor, equipment, rules, etc.). He takes all the "romantic" Ideas of an artist. He even claims to have said in the the "rush of inspiration," wrote, was a liar. His attitude in this thesis corresponds to his biography, as Eco himself is a linguistic and literary scholars. He called the 90% perspiration, make up a genius dominates. Thus, this is perhaps an understanding of self-praise. It would, however, that virtually everyone could be a good artist with diligence. He moves the creators much to the fore, and thus constitutes Gegenpostion to Baudelaire dar. This asserts the art itself is of value, that brings more inspiration in the foreground.
With his final thesis he accompanies his remarks again, in which he says that everyone, even if some unconscious, the procedures operate. With the proceedings, he says, for example, the classical dramatic theory, composition, or the sonata form. Either you deliberately uses these rules or you can choose an individual form. But even in this individual form put a rule to use, not the actual.
the end result in Eco's remarks a "guide to creating a work of art."
The first very clear and provocative thesis is that, the author could not interpret. He should, according to Eco, only explain his motivation. One should not anticipate this step the reader , Otherwise would take the "poetic effect" completely lost. If he does not, he can always be new ways that the text (always the work of art) "non-useful" to do. His attitude is so contrary to Lukac, who is a representative of the political art. According to him, the author clearly interpreted from his political stance, his work and pretend helps the recipient to interpret. It should remain no room for other interpretations.
His next argument, like his others, is very clear, genius is 10% inspiration (of course, libidinous ..) and 90% perspiration (labor, equipment, rules, etc.). He takes all the "romantic" Ideas of an artist. He even claims to have said in the the "rush of inspiration," wrote, was a liar. His attitude in this thesis corresponds to his biography, as Eco himself is a linguistic and literary scholars. He called the 90% perspiration, make up a genius dominates. Thus, this is perhaps an understanding of self-praise. It would, however, that virtually everyone could be a good artist with diligence. He moves the creators much to the fore, and thus constitutes Gegenpostion to Baudelaire dar. This asserts the art itself is of value, that brings more inspiration in the foreground.
With his final thesis he accompanies his remarks again, in which he says that everyone, even if some unconscious, the procedures operate. With the proceedings, he says, for example, the classical dramatic theory, composition, or the sonata form. Either you deliberately uses these rules or you can choose an individual form. But even in this individual form put a rule to use, not the actual.
the end result in Eco's remarks a "guide to creating a work of art."
----------------------------------------------- -------------------
Formal:
Blog Post by: Johanna Denfeld
rate: Q 3 / 4 pl1 and pl2
Date: 11/11/2010
subject: Umberto Eco: About the work process tell
Umberto Eco in an interview:
