Nah. It's just decent talk on the craft of writing or creating something. I wouldn't say it's pretentious at all.
@darthmongoose - I agree with a lot of what you've written in this thread. I rarely see people actually getting to grips with craft talk on the forums, but you've raised some pretty interesting points about slice of life and how WHO slice of life focuses on is a moral statement in itself. It gave me something to think about for sure.
I'm going to throw a challenge in to see if someone can put a moral lesson to one of the comics people tend to say is the most pointless of them all: Garfield.
Oh I know there is but the thing is people here have said there is media that is pointless without a moral lesson yet some people can even find some moral lesson in something like Garfield is kinda proof that nothing is truly pointless.
Again this is the problem with death of the author and people seeming patterns where none exisit. I’m not saying it’s a bad thing, but if the author stated that there’s no message and they just wanted to write a story then that’s the fact of the author’s POV. You can totally have your own interpretation that’s what death of the author is for.
But to look at joker again (spoilers?) There’s been a lot of people who believe the movie is an “all in his head” narrative. However the director went on record saying this interpretation isn’t correct. People can still totally have this interpretation for the simple fact it might appeal more to them. However it dosnt mean they’re correct on what’s actually happening in the movie.
Everyone will have their own interpretations and when it comes down to it it’s all a subjective point of movie analysis unless there are actual solid pieces of evidence to deny what the author is going for. Which sometimes is nothing. Sometimes they just wanna make a drawing/comic/movie and they don’t care what interpretation you personally get out of it.
I think you're maybe slightly misunderstanding the concept of "Death of the Author" here, and the fact that it represents only one method of literary criticism...
You know what, I think I'll just hand this one over to Lindsay Ellis:
Death of the author is only one critical lens to apply though. And multiple lenses are required to view a work in full. Also, Death of the Author isn't meant to be used to ignore themes in work, it's meant to be used to divorce the author's own beliefs from their work to see if the work stands on its own merits and has it's own point. Including the author includes further points through which to divine what the purpose of the work was. Even an author who says they have no message, as was explained above, simply by choosing which characters to portray or what story to tell, has included some kind of messaging. Subconscious morals sneaking into works doesn't mean that they don't exist.
Being able to control audience interpretation is another thing entirely - but usually if an audience is drawing a particular thing from your work that you didn't intend, then it's a good idea to analyse your work afterwards to see why they might believe that. Often, these ideas don't come from thin air and become widespread.
I feel like...I agree with this and disagree at the same time.
This probably holds true for MOST artists and MOST art, which is done with some kind of purpose in mind, even if there's no obvious moral.
But it completely ignores the idea of doing things for the hell of it. ^^;
Let's say I make a simple three panel comic: a blue pigeon sits on a branch. In the second panel, the pigeon is still blue, and still sitting on a branch. But in the third panel, surprise: the pigeon turns pink!
You could apply all sorts of meanings to this three panel comic, and honestly that'd make for a fun discussion. But it wouldn't change the fact that, surprise: I made the pigeon pink in the last panel just for the hell of it. I felt like changing the color. That's it. No moral, no message. I just thought it would be fun if the last panel had something different. Coulda been green. Coulda been yellow. I chose pink. ¯ \ _ (ツ) _ / ¯
The same goes for abstract art, and a lot of art that isn't abstract but just fun and random. I imagine myself doing a really bright and colorful piece featuring just an eyeball with a bright green iris on a yellow background.
"But why an eyeball with a GREEN iris, as opposed to a brown one?" "Why a disembodied eyeball?" "Why a YELLOW background?" You could ask all these questions and more, designed to get me to admit to some deeper motivation, but the only answer I can offer you is "'Cause I felt like it. It's pretty." I don't have any attachment to eyeballs or green eyeballs or any of those colors. It was just an idea.
This whole argument reminds me of my IB art class...honestly, when it comes to making museum style art that's supposed to impress people all on its own, I tend to want to do random things that I just "like". Maybe a sky, or a swirly pattern, or a red bunny wearing green glasses (true story). If I can't write a story about it, just let me do whatever pops into my head and it'll turn out better.
But all during that class I was pressured to find and apply deeper meanings, and act like an artist with a responsibility bigger than to just make things I "like". And I strongly believe that's why most of the art I created during that class was- pardon my French- hot garbage.
If you want meanings to art, feel free to apply as many as you want, but don't get the creator involved in what you believe should be seen in there. Sometimes a choice is just that, a choice. Not an ethical one, or a political one, but simply one. Not everything is so serious that it has to have a motivation.
Yeah I saw that vid, didn’t really agree with it I agreed with this guy much more https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=O6ZFDD6km682
But even then I didn’t like his interpretation of the theory 100% either
Yeah, and you run into the issue here that your moral would be abou the subversion of expectation and the chaotic elements of the creation of art. Your moral would be that the audience cannot dictate the intention of the author. Because that was the whole thought process behind what you did. The very act of trying to create something without a moral BECOMES the moral.
Also, intentionally or not, you set up all kinds of other things with that because of the cultural signifiers of colours, or pigeons etc. You might say "Oh it's some silly thing" but once you hold it up as art, it's not. It's something that can be analysed. And your very position of saying 'this is work without morality' is a moral position.
There is very little abstract art that is just for fun. A lot of it has meaning or at least purpose. You pointed it out yourself. Creating things you like, 'just for fun' also is a moral - that art should not have deeper meaning than just the artist having fun.
See how no matter how deep we go, we can't remove the human element?
But...it wasn't. I didn't turn the pigeon pink in the last panel because I figured no one would expect it. Or because I felt like something needed to be or should be different. I just kinda thought it'd be nice to make a comic where a pigeon changed color. '_'
Analysis from other people is separate and different from intention of the artist. I'm not disputing that.
It could be, but it isn't for me. I don't think art SHOULD not have deeper meaning than having fun. I believe it can, and because I believe that I did it. But that has nothing to do with anyone else. It's not a message, it's a fact that exists to be observed.
I'm not trying to remove any human element...having fun is a very human element, actually. I'm just trying to show that it's a separate element from morality. Just doing something that you like because you like it is different from consciously presenting a notion for other people to consider and/or accept.
It's a good video, I dig it.
But really, arguing over death of the author doesn't really get around the issue that DotA as a literary theory really only applies to the author's commentary on things they deliberately put into their text. Not things they unknowingly put into their text through things like cultural values, assumptions and their own biases.
Like.... Okay here's a page from the old version of my webcomic (Oh god, old art, kill meeee):
I put a really gay dynamic between these two female characters because I was excited by the idea of passionate exchanges and banter between women. I just put it in for the heck of it because I liked it. I didn't think twice about it. It's not intentional any more than the pigeon turning pink is just aww nice, I like that, I'll put it in my comic, completely unburdened by any deeper meaning! 
....But that doesn't mean it's not gay. The fact that I wasn't aware that really I was putting that in there because I find passionate encounters between women exciting and appealing because I'm a gay woman illustrates my point: Just because you're not thinking about some detail you put into a work, it doesn't mean that it has no meaning and doesn't say something about your values, or the values of your culture.
I'm beginning to wonder if this thread should not have started with the definition of the word "moral."
Not trying to be meta, but this is one of those words that people prefer to define for themselves because it has so many social implications. But there IS an official definition, and we ought to begin there to avoid confusion. Especially with multiple language speakers present.
Yeah but you created in the context of this thread's discussion - thus it has a meaning and a purpose and something you were consciously trying to subvert. The thought process behind it was to try to come up with what you presumed would be something meaningless, but it was to prove a point - thus it gained meaning.
Again, we run into objectivism which, honestly, doesn't stand up to much scrutiny. There's a reason Rand isn't considered much by most philopsophers or critics.
Having fun is a moral statement though isn't it? What do you class as fun? How is that different to someone else's? How is 'fun' art seen as different from 'purposeful' art? Whether it's subconscious or not doesn't matter.
I think this goes a little into the meaning of art problem though. Again - a moral doesn't have to be good, or improvement, or even anything remotely significant(edit: looking at Etymonline, it does literally mean good behavior, but I guess it got muddled because people use it along with theme). Maybe the pidgeon comic can be about subverting your expectations of a joke and instead turning into an anti-joke. That's kind of a theme - the color of the pidgeon doesn't matter, but that someone read that comic expecting something and you gave them something very minimal. It can be the theme and moral in itself, no need to be symbolic or even easily put into words, which is what a lot of abstract art does.
Going back to Garfield since I'm not replying to anyone in particular. It could be nihilism, but also, Garfield has to share life with people he, on surface level, doesn't even like. There are days where he hates everyone, there are days where he's happy with them, there are days their presence or lack thereof does something entirely different; but he has to keep interacting with them. It is a theme we all can relate to, and a moral of sorts.
Art that is for the fun of it, has the fun of it as its theme. It's cyclical. You did it because it was entertaining; other people found it entertaining and could think of something else for a second; or they got upset, and hyperfocused on this tiny detail of your art that made them angry. I get that conceptual art is a LOT of the Emperor's New Clothes with a few thousand dollar bills attached to it, had to swallow that stuff for 4 years of art school, but the principle is still kind of interesting to explore.
Definition of Moral
Derived from the Latin term “morālis,” moral means a message conveyed by, or a lesson learned from, a story, a poem, or an event. It is not necessary that the author or the poet has clearly stated it. It can be left for the audiences or the learners to derive. However, at times, moral is clearly stated in the shape of a proverb.
The moral to a story is a universal aspect of the majority of fictional literature that it not only entertains, but also it serves the purpose of instruction, information, and improvement of the audiences. The chorus in the classical drama, for example, commented upon the proceedings and drew out a message for the audience. The novels of Charles Dickens, on the other hand, address the drawbacks of the social and economic system of Victorian Britain, carrying morals of their own type, which are implicit.
In children’s literature, morals are exclusively introduced by the phrase, “The moral of the story is …” Modern story telling does not employ these explicit techniques, but uses irony and other devices to convey it.
Taken from: https://literarydevices.net/moral/
Dude, that was an example...I came up with the example in the context of the thread's discussion, and the only way such a comic would count as a valid example would be if it had been created separately from this discussion, which was what I meant. Not that it would count if I went and made it solely to prove my point, because THAT clearly wouldn't make sense.
If you need me to tell you, I included that example to bring to mind random comics that people make that depict things that happen just for the hell of it, which do exist. Not necessarily one of my own creation.
...What?
Is it, though? I think you should probably support that with something...
I dunno...but in this case, is a difference in 'fun' really equivalent to a difference in morals? Maybe the eyeball, which is a body part, could be labeled one way or the other...but what if, just for fun, I drew that swirly pattern? Or a cube with one red side and all the other sides blue? Or a lemon? Or a piece of Jello?
What makes these things fun? If someone else decides they're not fun, is that a difference in morals? I think they'd be fun to depict in art. What about that thought constitutes a moral statement?
I think it's as simple as a difference in intention. I could paint a red fence and call it a statement about communism. Or I could paint a red fence because red is my favorite color (it is). Either is applicable, and the number of people who support either explanation does not make either explanation more or less valid. The purely subjective intention of the artist is the only thing that truly separates purposeful from fun.
BY THE WAY, IN CASE ANYONE WAS WONDERING WHAT I MEANT IN THE ORIGINAL POST: I was really just talking about morals purposely applied during the creation of the work, as in issues that the author consciously intended to explore, SEPARATELY from what the audience sees in their creation.
The discussion has gotten way more nebulous, and that's fine, but if you want to refer back to where this all began, just know that ^THAT is what I was talking about.
