I imagine a lot of people couldn't give an honest or accurate answer when asked the question, "Why do you do interviews?" Someone who I hope to be interviewing for this final project gave a response to that exact question-- he said interviews are a meeting between two people, and it's simply something that is really cool. Anyone who sets time aside to get to know someone better, and have a personal conversation with, is someone worth talking to.
What we actually get as a final product of an interview is something worth thinking about. I am so glad that Errol Morris brought up the idea that people might have "privileged access" to their own minds. I too, agree with Morris in the respect that people don't have any idea of who they are. I don't know who I even am, and I struggle with that all the time. This idea alone is enough to make me skeptical of everything, including the things I say and think. The human perception of reality is so skewed, that it takes conscious understanding, willingness to overcome cognitive biases-- and even then we can't know for sure what is real. So the accuracy of interviews is disputable, but as Klosterman alludes to, it is the best mean we've got; it is still worth doing.
When I first read about the way Prince use to conduct interviews, I thought it was brilliant. Like Morris said, "his words could not be taken out of context if there was no context." After thinking about it a bit more, I could see possible negative unintended consequences that might come with it. Having someone else convey your message is a very scary thing, especially when one is without knowing the interviewees intent. I'd only recommend this style of giving interviews to people who cannot craft their own words carefully, and has little confidence in their own ability to represent themselves.
I enjoyed the process of blogging in this class, and I am going to continue doing it on my own. It's a great way to be reflective, and not writing to satisfy an audience is liberating.
Meta indeed.
ReplyDeleteI love the Prince story, too...so him.
Morris' comment about "privileged access" is indeed interesting. As you rightly point out, most of us barely know ourselves. The extended discussion of truth in this reading doesn't lead to a concrete answer, but I think it pushes us to consider how we represent ourselves and others, and how we might talk about this "reality" that we can barely even apprehend.
Glad you saw value in the blog, Mike (though I would argue that you did, in fact, have an audience).
The blog is (ideally) an invitation to be a writer rather than a student - and you definitely embraced it in such a way. Thoroughly enjoyed your posts.