The article on Death of the Author draws parallels between Barthes monumental essay and its impact on art. This short essay summarizes how artists began challenging the relationship between creator, the experience and the participant. The focus of this particular writing deals with the idea of the "master artist" and notions of grand identity within art.
Consider reading Roland Barthes 1967 essay to better contextualize the relationship between this literary concept and artistic interpretations. http://artsites.ucsc.edu/faculty/Gustafson/FILM%20162.W10/readings/barthes.death.pdf
Please read and research then post your personal response as well as two images, in the same format as the previous posting. Be careful to make sure the works you find reflect the approach to art described in the article.
Thanks,
Brandon
due Tuesday 2/19
10 points
Death Of The Author
ReplyDeleteThe article Death of the Author, both the hand out and the essay, are written for an audience with a deeper connection for the reader vs. author topic. Because of my intentional limited exposure to this type of writing, I was not the audience the author intended his essay to be read by. The context clues of both texts were written for someone who has some familiarity to infer its meaning in a deeper sense. The author "Roland Barthes," talks about how the "sway of the author is powerful." He also states that, "language acts, not the author." What this means to me is a prime example of me as the reader of his writing of the essay. All of his artistry of words and deep meanings, gave me the feeling of uneasiness and chaos in written form. Even though he is trying to persuade the reader in his essay to be convinced the author is the one who "nourishes the book," and the "text's unity lies not in its origin but in its destination," this was somewhat contradicting and confusing. I tried to find any connections, but the only one that jumped out at me was the word, foregrounding, which was found in the last part of the written hard copy article. It said, "foregrounding the gendered nature of their authority." So the word has dual meanings, but I automatically knew the meaning in connection to what I know about drawing. I feel that this interpretation of the reader vs. author topic would be more engaging for me had it been easier to actually read the text with a clearer understanding. The article and essay made me feel like I was inadequate to comprehend the intended message.
So I read about the artist William Boyd. "Boyd's work was not intended to expose the shallowness of the New York art world. Instead, they said, it was meant as a sort of artwork itself." Also, Boyd regards his art as, "what makes something real as opposed to invented.'' He feels that reality is just a matter of presentation. I can see a relation to Barthes essay in regards to how they feel about themselves as the creator of their art, be it of words or canvas and yet they feel the interpretation is not their own but the one who reads or views their art.
Artist: William Boyd
Art work: ``Portrait of K,'' the only extant painting by the alleged Nat Tate.
http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/06/14/bookend/bookend.html
I agree, Death of an Author is clearly about literature, but the important thing to understand is that its ideas have had a huge impact on contemporary art. The question that it poses is this; What is more important? the artist or the relationship the viewer has to the work. It does not suppose that the artist is irrelevant, obviously the artist is the composer and source by which experience is facilitated. What is important to consider though, when experiencing art, is how necessary is our knowledge of the author and his intent?
DeleteThanks for the research you did on William Boyd, I think his work did help scaffold your thoughts concerning "Death of The Author".
Maybe since you just posted the assignment yesterday, you did not mean to have a Feb.19th due date. Just noticed that.
ReplyDeleteHave a good snow day.
I agree with Beverly in that this essay/article was not meant for someone like me to read. The wording and language of the piece was difficult to understand and probably for someone much more well rounded than myself. I believe the gist of it was that the writer was trying to bring across the idea that it isn't the writing itself or the author or the facts or the work, but the underlining message behind it that is what it most important? I put a question mark there because it still has me a bit confused. I'm honestly not sure how I would link pieces of artwork to an article like this.
ReplyDeleteTatiana, consider reading my responses to the other students to help understand the thoughts behind this theory. Also, the other students help define what they read and that should help guide you.
DeleteAlso, consider your previous reading about Neo-Expressionism. The Neo-Expressionists in many regards did not adhere to the sentiments of "Death of the Author" because the notoriety and the significance of their authorship was important to them.
This essay might have been difficult to read but to say it isn't for someone like you is inaccurate. This article may have required some research but this theory is a simple one and an important key to unlocking many aspects of contemporary art.
Here’s what I understood from the reading. Death of the Author describes a modern trend where the author/artist fades into the background and leaves interpretation up to the reader/viewer. Barthes’ article describes how liberals may embrace death of the author because it takes the validity and the authority away from the author/artist, and places it into the hands of the author/artist. As a general principle, I dislike that shift of responsibility. First of all, who said it? Can you trust them? Should you be listening? What did they experience that led them to say what they said? What authority do they have on the matter? We can’t bend truth to fit our individual preferences. And, as a student of psychology, I believe strongly that a person’s background colors so much about their present, and I want to understand everything that got them to where they are now. I place value in that understanding. However, I feel that things of the heart which are expressed subjectively through art will mean very different things to different people. So as far as art goes, I appreciate the artwork being about the value I place on it, rather than the value of the artist. Also, in this technology age, things go viral pretty darn quick, and it’s kind of like playing the game of telephone. Whatever you say may be chewed up and spewed out at the entire world. So death of the author is in some situations unavoidable.
ReplyDeleteArtist: Sherrie Levine
Work: Crystal Skull
Link: http://whitney.org/Exhibitions/SherrieLevine
Artist: Giulio Paolini
Work: Elegia
Link: http://www.museomadre.it/opere.cfm?id=1639
Sonya, I appreciate your response. There are several aspects of "Death of The Author" that you've grasped, but I think you missed the heart of the theory.
DeleteThere were a couple statements that didn't make sense to me, like, "Barthes' article describes how liberals may embrace death of the author because it takes the validity and the authority away from the autor/artist, and places it into the hands of the author/artist." Perhaps you meant, "...place it in the hands of the viewer"?
First of all, "Death of The Author" is not a modern trend, it is a theory that has informed the last 40 years of contemporary artwork. Second, it is not a theory for liberals, it is for anyone who has a desire to make the experience of art personal - not with the desire to rob the artist of their own personal experience or "bend the truth", but to embrace the uniqueness of what we all bring to the table.
To clarify, "Death of the Author" simply suggests that an artists job is to be the architect of experience. When you walk into a beautifully designed building the first thought isn't who made this and what was their intent. "Death of the Author" was an essay that discusses the idea that the literary artist is a composer who, rather than dictating to the reader, simply creates an experience that guides a person into their own unique experiences and interpretations. Remember art is not an absolute truth that "cannot be challenged and cannot be fully attained" (in my best God voice). Art is made by people and is experienced by people.
Your best statement, "So as far as art goes, I appreciate the artwork being about the value I place on it, rather than the value of the artist." This is an informed thought that expresses a connection to the text.
Don't be so guarded concerning ideas that aren't initially comfortable. I am not suggesting that you agree with whatever you read but I do think it is beneficial for you to be more open as you investigate. You are a very smart person. Research fully the ideas before you draw dogmatic conclusions.
Your two examples were great. Particularly the process behind the work of Paolini.
I think the notion of the "Death of the Author" is interesting in as much as it involves the exploration of reproduction. It's just one interesting facet of art exploration, though. Ordinary people will never move en masse away from the idea of celebrating the artist, and wanting to explore the story of the artist as part of the art experience. Art that explores the "Death of the Author" is a sort of meta-art -- art about art. Art that explores broader life experiences -- let's say what it was like to live through the fire bombing of Dresden or something like -- must explore the actual experiences of the artist and it's relationship to the artist to really put it into context.
ReplyDeleteArtist: Saying that would defeat the purpose
Work: Last Supper appropriation
Link: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-BwBpUhwX-Sw/Tf6mTG_NTMI/AAAAAAAAABQ/UUcXlNNepqM/s1600/Last_Supper_Appropriation_by_Wijeee.jpg
Work: Appropriation of Les Demoiselles d’Avignon
Link: http://www.studentpulse.com/article-images/uploaded/1.jpg
Mike, you make great points in your response and you captured the idea of "Death of an Author". I want to address a couple of interesting points you made.
Delete- "Ordinary people will never move en masse away from the idea of celebrating the artist..."
This is a great point, your right, in the simplest sense people will always be interested in source and biography. What I believe is important though is that participants and viewers of art begin to think less about notions of the "master" and begin seeing work as it impacts them personally. This western view of the "genius artist" only prevents art from being accessible and discourages the provocation of potential makers. What is most important in this theory is the idea that if the artist is willing to step behind their work the value of art, in terms of the intangible, can only increase.
- Your idea and example about "art about art"
First, art has always been about art. Second, the idea that context is dependent on the incorporation of the artist biographical experience can only be partially true. It depends on the nature of the experience and the context one necessitates. Perhaps context should be informed simply by the experience itself, making the artwork more about the interpretation/investigation rather than the connections the work has to the "author".
I think you would really be interested in reading about the Conceptualist Movement. Within this movement artists began seeing the ideas of their work as more important than the product of their work. I am posting a short broadcast here about an artist named Sol Lewitt...let me know what you think.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=97765999
One last thing to reflect on; The Last Supper is perhaps the greatest work by the greatest of Renaissance masters, Leonardo DaVinci. Today only 20% of the original Last Supper remains, the other 80% was repainted by restoration artists over a 20 year period. Reflecting on this, I wonder what is more enduring (I am not supposing there is one simple answer), the idea and the beauty of the idea or the fact the paint it is composed of comes from the direct hand of DaVinci.