You keep talking about "writing for expectations" which has nothing to do with what I'm talking about at all.

My claim is that the starting premise of any art is that there is an audience, and an artist. The reason I'm talking about this in this thread is that I've been told (I forget if it was in this thread or somewhere else) that the ending for the Sopranos was Chase's personal ending, that he gave the audience no consideration at all. I don't know if that's true, but if it is, how can that possibly be art?

There is a difference between not considering the audience when creating, and the work not ever actually reaching an audience. Chase knew his creation would reach an audience... whether or not he considered them in the creation of the work is irrelevant.

My apologies if this has been posted, but I don't recall seeing it. Pretty quick work. Is the Parrot being retired?

I completely disagree with that last statement. However, I don't think that makes you "not bright."

The starting premise of any art is not that there is an audience -- rather, the starting premise is that there is an artist. If they are compelled to create, it doesn't matter if anyone else besides them values the work, EVEN IF they do eventually want an audience for it. Chase presented his vision, and we're debating its aesthetic merit. It's not a wrong or bad ending because it defies expectations -- it's a good or bad ending on the merits of whether the work achieves artistic excellence, outside of audience.

I see where you're coming from, but we disagree about the importance of the audience to a work. From my perspective as a practicing artist, I can tell you that audience consideration for literary work is nearly zero. Popular work, on the other hand, makes audience expectation a primary concern. The Sopranos was a series that was massively popular despite being "literary" in its execution -- for the gifts Chase gave the audience (the constant malaprops, the references to outside events and such that would be resonant with the popular audience), the narrative was at its core a literary one, and the "story" ended in a similar way to many literary narratives. In fact, I'd argue that an audience steeped in literature is less likely to be put off by the finale because our expectations are refined by exposure to similar methods of dealing with narrative closure, especially in short stories.

I'd also argue that Chase did give the audience what they wanted -- something unprecedented in television history that would guarantee interesting debate.

One other thought: if artists were concerned with giving something other than their personal vision, you'd be talking about dumbed down art. We should want our artists to create works that challenge and expand our aesthetics. It is that individual artist's vision that makes a work art, and not merely craft (as in a table that you can build a blueprint for and have many people copy exactly).

Interesting discussion, but I have one question. Is the object (book, movie, painting, etc) art itself, or is it just the mode of communication which is really the art?

The object or event is the art because it is in some manner fixed. The interpretation of the art will vary from person to person and era to era. To use the above example, Emily Dickinson's poems are still the same, but the interpretation of her work has changed over time and will vary from individual to individual.

St. Cronin: I believe I remember that your girlfriend is a photographer. Do you have any idea how she considers the audience as she's taking photos?

Depends on which mode of art to which you refer. Object-based art (painting, sculpture, etc.) clearly falls into one camp, while performance-based art (theatre, song, etc.) takes elements from several modes.

This is actually key, key, key. In achieved art, there is a depth that allows for critics of any era to dig in and explore. In limited art, there's no interest and thus no reason. Same reason why Citizen Kane is beloved and Deuce Bigelow is not -- we see Kane with fresh eyes each time, while the other film is what it is in every viewing. Dickinson's work offers something different to a wide range of critics. Rod McKuen, not so much.

I think we do want our artists to do that - but, not to get redundant, wanting that presupposes the existence of an audience.


Photography is mostly a hobby for her, but she has sold wood burnings and paintings and has also written a couple of children's books (unpublished). When she is working, I think she is mostly thinking about unicorns and puppies. I suspect there's a way in which the philosophy of art is actually inaccessible to an artist, at least when they're actually in creative mode.

No offense, but this conversation has gotten very boring, very quickly.

What about the Parrot-y?

Presupposing (or praying for) the existence of an audience is a separate issue from creating a work that takes audience consideration into account in a serious way (e.g. making a narrative decision in opposition to an artist's original vision based on perceived reaction). An artist can want an audience without altering his vision (raises hand). Speaking personally, I tend to assume that my readers will not notice most of the stuff I've built in craftwise to make the machine work -- and if I'm doing a good job, they generally won't. It's kind of like with music -- you don't notice every instrument the first time you listen, or understand all the words.

To reiterate, I don't think you're unbright from the argument you're making -- you're certainly not alone in feeling that audience is important in art, but we just disagree as to the role of that relationship. But I would wager that most serious artists are concerned with any eventual audience for aspects of their career that are unconnected from their work, and generally create work that satisfies themselves and their ideas of what any artists who are important to them might think or have thought.

No offense, but discussions of aesthetic theory aren't really for amateurs or the easily bored. ;)

This is an interesting statement, and one with which I find a lot of sympathy. Most artists are not the best critics of their own work. And when you are in a creative mode--at least for this writer--one is generally shutting out any kinds of outside distractions, and listening very closely to their internal voice (or imaginative wandering, with its occasional unicorn).

You're telling me...I don't even remember what was originally debated.

Given the actions of the Pirate in the 80s, it's not that hard to envision him as a criminal mastermind.

if the finale was 60 minutes of just tv static that would guarantee interesting debate. what's your point?

Was he involved with the cocaine thing, too?

This is nonsense. The work is what it is. The audience chooses to embrace it or not. When the artist begins listening to the audience for direction, he's lost. And he ain't finding his way back.

No, it wouldn't lead to interesting debate, in part because unlike the finale that aired, it would bear little relation to the characters, the narrative, or the series as a whole. There would be only a couple of things one could say about that decision, and none of them would be good. As you're clearly missing the points I've been making throughout this thread, though, I doubt any further explanations will enlighten you.

.

Oh geez, now I've seen everything. st.cronin debating with NoMyths about poets, poetry and art.

He was implicated for buying cocaine and introducing players to drug dealers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittsburgh_drug_trials

Amazing that 7 players were given a full season suspension, but then had it waived for a 10% donation of their salary to drug charities.

You say its nonsense, but then with your third sentence you assume that the audience exists. THAT is my point.

Chase decided the static would be a metaphor. afterall, isn't Chase allowed to be an artist and create for himself and not care what the audience thinks? so apparently you are deciding what is art and what isn't? isn't that the same thing here what people are saying?

the medium of tv - a story one watches - calls for a beginning, a middle and an end. there is art and silent beauty in a construction worker using a jackhammer on concrete, but that doesn't mean the construction worker is free to do as he pleases and take creative license to express himself without an obligation to others.

HA: That's really a jumbled mess. First, there's a big difference between ending the story in the way Chase chose and completely obliterating the story by airing static. As Nomyths pointed out, one continues the narrative and one doesn't.

Second, you're confusing convention and obligation. I'll give you that the convention of almost every tv show is a neoclassical beginning/middle/end structure, but there's nothing that says it has to be that way. As in any artistic medium people, when given the opportunity, experiment. This experiment may not have been successful in your opinion, but you're wrong to say it somehow violated a set of rules.

Third, I don't get the jackhammer analogy. I'm assuming you're arguing that the jackhammer is confined by safety and the rules of his employer. Chase wasn't bound by either of those. If the jackhammer operator were working on his own with no safety issues of course he could do as he pleased.

I was thinking a lot about this discussion last night. I think the big issue is whether or not you want art that answers questions or poses questions. I personally want to be provoked to explore issues raised by art. Art that leaves nothing unanswered, for me at least, is dull.

You're confused about the nature of metaphor. If it's detached from everything else in the episode, it's not metaphor -- it has to connect with something else to resonate in its alternate form. If he decided to run an hour of static (and HBO let him), it wouldn't be an episode of The Sopranos -- it would be an experiment, and it wouldn't generate nearly the kind of support the current finale does. It's not a matter of me deciding what is and isn't art -- it's about me applying the guiding criteria for art: a combination of voice and craft.


This sounds nice, but it's not an accurate depiction of art. Remember: art is a combination of voice and craft. A jackhammering construction worker is engaging in a craft, and it can be beautiful to watch a craft done well. But his jackhammering does not exist because he is creating art -- he is engaging in craft, the end of which is not artistic in nature but purely functional (and we could get into the whole "but is functional craft art" discussion, but I'd prefer not to) and not meant to satisfy any of the aims of art (or almost none of them). Watching him, a viewer may be awed by the beauty of the craft, but the worker is not intentionally engaging in an artistic pursuit. Slow anything down on 16mm film and add a soundtrack and even a bowl of porridge can seem artistic. Everything is not art, though there is beauty in most things.

The "medium of TV" calls for no such thing. You're trying to tell me that variety shows, game shows, infomercials, sitcoms, network and cable dramas, shopping channels, and the whole gamut of other niche programming satisfies your theoretical rule of "beginning, middle, and end"? Speaking as an expert: not all narratives have structures that satisfy that mode in the way you're describing. Certainly The Sopranos finale doesn't offer the obvious b,m,e structure, and the disruption of that model is compelling to many of us who enjoyed the episode.

The construction worker doesn't have artistic license because he's not being paid to create art -- he's being paid to destroy concrete. Even if his technique for destroying concrete is more beautiful to watch than another man's, he will get canned if he isn't doing his job effectively. He is engaging in a craft, not an art -- and while a craft can elevated to the level of art (again: combination of voice and craft), in and of itself its aims are different than those of art.

I don't think that's the question, not for me. I would say its more like this: Is art supposed to be a sharing of something, a transmission of some experience or imagination? And if not, then what is it?

Seeing as how my art is theatre I think art is about communication. However, as I've said before, the artist is only in control of the object or event. The experience is had by the audience and while it can be guided by the artist, it can never be completely controlled. Each individual in the audience defines the experience for themselves.

For me as an artist what happens in that space between my objective and the audience's understanding is what's exciting. Every time I direct a show I am surprised by perceptions of audience members. Each time I learn a little about how people respond to my work, but I will never be able to provide an audience with what they believe they want. That's why I try to be true to my vision, along with that of the playwright and see what happens.

I guess there's not really one explanation you could put to art as a whole, but for me it is the act of creatively expressing either a thing or a statement in an abstract form. That definition does not require an audience to express a thing, although expression of a statement would imply that some sort of audience was sought.

I have finally finished the series after starting this summer using the power of Netflix. My conclusion on the finale is that he's dead. I don't see how anybody can watch that episode and not believe he's dead. I also believe nobody else was killed and that the point of the song is that life is going to go on for everybody else. The story continues after his death just like it will for all of our families/friends upon our death.

David Chase disagrees with you.

David Chase reveals the truth behind 'The Sopranos' ending

Interesting...however, I just read an EW article and it made it seem like he was never going to say one way or another...

Talking with David Chase | The Sopranos | DVD News | DVD | Entertainment Weekly

EW: You've been mum about the ultimate meaning of the show's finale. But in the DVD supplements you do admit that you were partly invoking the finale of Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey, where Keir Dullea's character watches himself age. Does that onion-rings-at-the-diner scene even actually happen, or is Tony just ruminating?
DC: [Long pause.] There's more than one way of looking at the ending. That's all I'll say. [Laughs]

With that said, I think the only other way that scene could be taken is in that way...the cut from Tony when he comes in to when his family is there is so abrupt it made me think he was seeing what could happen.

Hopefully, at some point, he comes clean with what his true intentions were.

Why? People would then stop talking about it. One of the greatest ploys in cinema (and TV) are the not-so-tidy endings and the subtle clues along the way. It keeps it alive, some for generations. It is a fine line because it can go overboard with a vague and nonsensical ending and really backfire, esp. among fans (The Pretender comes to mind).

Agreed...even if he left it in his will to be given out after he dies, that would be fine with me.

What makes you think he had a clear decision? As a theatre director I've often done things without making a clear decision on what happens. It wouldn't surprise me at all if he never made the choice on whether or not Tony is dead. AFterall, if he made that choice he likely would have shown us.

Dang...I'd forgotten about this discussion. Glad it was necroed. :)

Me, too. I read through the entire thread earlier today. Man, it's almost weird now to think there was a time when I could watch a new episode every Sunday.

So is Tony still alive?

He was the last time he was on my TV.

June 2007. Wow, time flies.

Just read back through this whole thread. Fun read. My favorite part was seeing this...


...and thinking, "come on did anyone really think they would replicate Beverly Hills 90210?"...only to see three hours later:



Nice to know I still have the same stupid thoughts nearly 5 years later. I also enjoyed this post of mine (in reference to the finale running 5 mins extra):

Timely bump. Vanity Fair just released an entertaining oral history of the show.

The Family Hour: An Oral History of The Sopranos | Hollywood | Vanity Fair

Great read. Thanks for the link.

+1. Just finished it.

Has anyone else done a rewatch lately? To me, and maybe it's cause I've taken a few film theory classes, the ending is way more satisfying the second time around.

For me, it was a lot more satisfying after I found articles like this to explain it to me.

Page 1 | The Sopranos: Definitive Explanation of "The END"

Still, it wasn't at all the kind of ending I desired or hoped for at the time. Which is OK, the Sopranos has never been about traditional TV story-telling or endings, like a Breaking Bad is. It's a big slice-of-life piece, you can really jump in anywhere and be entertained. Any random clip, any random season, the show still has a way to grab me.

That's what I was saying right after it aired, albeit in many fewer words. :D