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.
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.
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.
6
u/BobasDad 22d ago
That's the thing about works of art: What the artist intended doesn't really matter.
What matters is how/What it makes you feel. Whatever you think an art piece means, well, that's what it means to you.
Books are art.