re: Mad Men Series Finale - "Person to Person"

quote:

---

That doesnt mean both interpretations are correct

---

For a long time, critics believed that the "author's intention" was the correct interpretation of a work. However, that belief has come under fire in recent years as works of art, music, literature, and film cross cultural boundaries and live for centuries. When those things happen, art is naturally reinterpreted in different ways by different audiences.

Also, we know that authors and composers lie about their own work (e.g., Igor Stravinsky) to obscure the original intent

Thus, the idea of a single "correct" interpretation, as one might find in science, simply doesn't exist. Some interpretations are founded on more concrete evidence than others. Hence, they might be more persuasive to a given audience in a given time period.

For some, this is what makes art frustrating. For others (like me), this is what makes art exciting and alive.

quote:

---

Thus, the idea of a single "correct" interpretation, as one might find in science, simply doesn't exist. Some interpretations are founded on more concrete evidence than others. Hence, they might be more persuasive to a given audience in a given time period.

---

Even in science interpretations can change (Kuhn).

Postmodernism has had a profound effect in not only how we respond to literature, movies, music, art, etc but also in how authors construct their stories. Just look at the major TV shows of the last decade or so. There have been numerous shows that have ended with some kind of ending that is open to interpretation.

One's interpretation of Mad Men's ending depends on how one personally feels about Don.

quote:

---

Even in science interpretations can change (Kuhn).

---

So? In the world that Mad Men exists, Weiner is god. His interpretation is reality. You can argue about subjective things like "is Don a good guy" etc. But events like "Did Don create the Coke ad" can only be argued if Weiner himself doesnt know. They can also be argued because Weiner doesnt tell people. But even then, one of those arguments is correct.

quote:

---

How can you guarantee that?

---

Because no one with a BA in literature from Wesleyan and an MFA in cinema from USC would fall into the "intentional fallacy" trap.

That's basically the equivalent of 1+2=3 for math majors.

Read anything that he or David Chase have said about art in interviews. They detest authorial intent and strive to avoid it at all costs.

quote:

---

So? In the world that Mad Men exists, Weiner is god. His interpretation is reality. You can argue about subjective things like "is Don a good guy" etc. But events like "Did Don create the Coke ad" can only be argued if Weiner himself doesnt know. They can also be argued because Weiner doesnt tell people. But even then, one of those arguments is correct.

---

That's not really the case anymore. Weiner could have had Don shoot himself in the head. If someone wanted to argue that there is evidence in the show that Don is the start of the Walking Dead series, they're allowed to.

Obviously that's an extreme example, but that's the nature of analysis nowadays. You're free to interpret what you want, how you want, as long as you provide evidence and citations.

quote:

---

That's not really the case anymore. Weiner could have had Don shoot himself in the head. If someone wanted to argue that there is evidence in the show that Don is the start of the Walking Dead series, they're allowed to.

Obviously that's an extreme example, but that's the nature of analysis nowadays. You're free to interpret what you want, how you want, as long as you provide evidence and citations.

---

I NEVER argued that you werent.

quote:

---

That doesnt mean both interpretations are correct

---

Ok genius.

How is it cynical? Coming up with great ideas is cynical? You sound cynical.

quote:

---

by theunknownknight
the crap is going on in this thread?

---

Dorks arguing about who's better at watching TV.

The reason it is hard for me to believe Don did the coke ad is that so much points to him never going back to advertising. The signs of coke throughout the final episodes leading to the end do point to him making the ad but I think it's a regression for Don to return to advertising and I'm not sure why ME would allow him back. He's got 50 other guys doing the same fricking job.