So I read up on wiki policy. It would seem meaning is an opinion and can’t be sourced.
But what about the original author, is what they say just an opinion? The originator of a work doesn’t have a source which they can cite, but critics/analysts and readers of critics etc can cite criticism etc.
To think of all the shitty made up opinions in books written by crap academics I’ve read but they are considered a source and the original artist isn’t. That is so fucked up.
Too subjective right? Your take away and my take away could be totally different.
I remember in year 12 the English teacher asked us “what do you think the director meant with his inclusion of shots with lots of birds?”. One of the students goes “His mum likes birds Mrs” and the teacher goes “No, its about freedom, and the characters desires to be free and fly away from their troubles” and the student goes “No Mrs, I watched the directors commentary. His mum likes birds!”.
That’s a spin out. Never noticed that. I looked up various painters both alive and deceased from various disciplines. Nothing.
The closest you can get to intention, meaning or philosophy is under the wide ranging banner of “movements” such as colour fields or abstract expressionism.
astonishing.
The author has to post something to a blog and get it added to wikipedia that way. I recall one author got tripped up that way when he tried to make some corrections to a page about his book.
Had similar assignments. Failed English class for this exact reason… unable to summarise. Apparently forcefully kept home for 11 years meant I had no summarise capabilities at all.
How come Wikipedia never discusses meaning or emotion in articles about books, movies and songs?
This has bothered me for a while.
Sure I understand that meaning and emotion may differ according to viewer but surely they can discuss what the authors meant?
contribute to the wiki page?
So I read up on wiki policy. It would seem meaning is an opinion and can’t be sourced.
But what about the original author, is what they say just an opinion? The originator of a work doesn’t have a source which they can cite, but critics/analysts and readers of critics etc can cite criticism etc.
To think of all the shitty made up opinions in books written by crap academics I’ve read but they are considered a source and the original artist isn’t. That is so fucked up.
So it’s back to watching commentary on dvds.
Too subjective right? Your take away and my take away could be totally different.
I remember in year 12 the English teacher asked us “what do you think the director meant with his inclusion of shots with lots of birds?”. One of the students goes “His mum likes birds Mrs” and the teacher goes “No, its about freedom, and the characters desires to be free and fly away from their troubles” and the student goes “No Mrs, I watched the directors commentary. His mum likes birds!”.
" “No Mrs, I watched the directors commentary. His mum likes birds!”."
I believe it.
I’m so sick of wankers.
That’s a spin out. Never noticed that. I looked up various painters both alive and deceased from various disciplines. Nothing. The closest you can get to intention, meaning or philosophy is under the wide ranging banner of “movements” such as colour fields or abstract expressionism. astonishing.
The author has to post something to a blog and get it added to wikipedia that way. I recall one author got tripped up that way when he tried to make some corrections to a page about his book.
every single entry is like that which makes me think it’s policy
deleted by creator
just regurgitate what the teacher/lecturer said, eh
Had similar assignments. Failed English class for this exact reason… unable to summarise. Apparently forcefully kept home for 11 years meant I had no summarise capabilities at all.
Now I’m wondering if Encyclopaedia Britannica does.