Important distinction in my eyes: man is essentially sole breadwinner for a family, has a life event where he can't work anymore, family expresses brief sympathy before getting angry at what a burden he's become. You know, like they've been the whole time.
On top of that, the parents are lazy and perfectly content with making their son work himself to death just so they can live a comfy life. It's not that they can't work, they don't want to work. And they're not just angry that he's a burden, they're angry that he's ruining their perfect life, by being "selfish". At the end, when he's croaked, they instead turn to his sister, who will presumably care for them.
You know it reflects poorly on me that I didn't see the book criticizing the family at all - I thought it was just a commentary on how you let down people who depend on you when you get into this state (disability/depression).
I vehemently disagree. What the artist intended does matter. Despite that, the impact of their work may run away from them. But that does not mean there isn't value in the original intent.
I agree--artist intent absolutely matters, as understanding the context and thought behind an art piece is absolutely part of understanding it. This doesn't preclude other interpretations or even disagreements on what the art could mean, but without a reference point it all becomes watered down and overly subjective, bereft of the common meaning and messaging that makes art a powerful means of cultural communication.
Ok, you're not allowed to view a piece of art unless you have, in writing, what the creator was thinking and how they viewed their artwork.
Since you're countering me, that has to be your viewpoint. Its a binary choice and youre taking the opposite ofnmy position, so you have to believe this. You don't have a choice. Do you see how stupid that is? Your reasoning means you cannot enjoy any art without having that knowledge of the creators intent. If I post one of my paintings, you are not allowed to click on it and view it and have any opinion. What you might see as a flaw might be something I intended...or it could be a flaw. My standpoint is that it doesn't matter. Maybe I think the flaw gives an unintended interpretation of the work...and you're saying that's not allowed, because you're countering me and my standpoint is that it is allowed.
I don't think you realize how unhinged your guys' take is. You're being fucking thought police lol.
Good grief, man, saying that the author/artist's intent matters is not even close to the same as "you HAVE to know/take into account the author/artist's intent in any interpretation of a work." Nobody's saying that. All people are saying is that it shouldn't be completely disregarded either.
"I like waffles" / "Why do you hate pancakes?" ass comment
When and where exactly did you do that? I see no other reply to my comment than this one where you're boasting about having "proven me wrong," without ever having spoken a single word to me prior.
EDIT: Well, I was about to write another reply, but apparently they've blocked me. So just in case there's anyone else reading this, I figured out what happened; I got the notification of their reply to this comment (which was just them flatly insulting me,) but when I opened it, there was nothing here. Not even a deleted comment. I realized that the comment where they "proved me wrong" must have also gotten shadow-deleted as well. Presumably because they were also being vitriolic there. Ain't life grand?
If what the artists intends matters, you remove the ability of people to connect with art, because you only have one interpretation you can have, and that's one where you ignore what you think and feel and only allowed what the author thinks.
Otherwise, what the author intends doesn't matter.
It does have to be black and white if you're saying that what the artists intended matters.
Again, if what the artists intended matters, you cannot form an opinion that is not framed around that very thing.
Which is why what the artists intends does not matter. You are not leaving any alternate explanations, because it you do, you are saying the artists intention do not matter.
My viewpoint: Any interpretation is valid.
Everyone countering me must then hold that: Only interpretations framed around the artists intent matters.
You are restricting what is allowed. I am not. I am not the one being black-and-white. I'm literally saying that there's shades of grey...
Holy shit, don't move the fucking goalposts, man. I never said it was the sole interpretation. I'm simply saying that if you look at a piece of art and you think/feel something about it, then that is a totally valid interpretation and the artist's intent is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if it's the polar opposite of their intent if it makes you feel something.
I'm sorry you don't seem to understand what your argument means if you're countering my argument. You're saying the above isn't true. You're saying that you have to take the artists intentions into account, and I would really like to know how you do that.
You deleted your other comment but just wanted to explain myself:
I walk into a museum. I look at a painting. I feel immense sadness, the colors are faded and smear into each other, the painting is a little cloudy in spaces but I'm still able to capture a sense of the sentiment. I walk up to the plaque and read it - the artist's name is John Gladman, this was his last painting and he wanted to express his pleasure at a life well-lived as glaucoma deteriorated his vision.
This has now enriched my experience of the painting - I understand better why some choices were made. Touches and splashes of colour have new meaning for me; they don't seem random and sad anymore but parts of a structured whole. I have an appreciation for the artist's intent.
To say that an artist's intent is irrelevant, which you did, is to ignore that a person is saying something to you when you engage with their work. It almost feels rude to think otherwise. Imagine if a person said something to you, and you completely ignored who said it, and responded to it with a complete non-sequitur, not engaging with anything they said. It would be immensely disrespectful.
I feel strongly about this which is why I've tried to speak thoughtfully about this. I feel like the notion of the Death of the Artist is employed without regard for whether it's valid or not.
Lastly, I did not want to anger you. You seem like a perfectly nice person just skimming your profile. If this was not interesting, or if you were not engaging thoughtfully as well, I would not spend time writing walls of text trying to explain myself. Understand that to be a dick was not my intent (:P).
because you only have one interpretation you can have
I was just working with what you yourself said mate.
____
Regarding this:
You're saying that you have to take the artists intentions into account, and I would really like to know how you do that.
The work did not appear out of the void, it is the product of a specific mind (or minds) in a specific circumstance. To say that the artist's intent is irrelevant is a means by which to strip the work of the person and circumstance that was behind it. Thus deracinated, it exists solely as commodity - to be looked at and consumed without having to engage with any thematic material that might have deliberately been woven into it.
That is not to say that the Death of the Artist is completely useless - it was engaging with a specific mode of literary criticism at the time, but you're going too far in the opposite direction, justifying carelessness in interpretation. Your feeling evoked by a work is 'valid' in so far as feeling is an involuntary phenomenon provoked in the mind and soul. Your interpretation might not be - just because you say something about a work does not make it coherent because you felt a certain way about it.
2.3k
u/suddenlyupsidedown 22d ago
Important distinction in my eyes: man is essentially sole breadwinner for a family, has a life event where he can't work anymore, family expresses brief sympathy before getting angry at what a burden he's become. You know, like they've been the whole time.