Death of the Author is a theory given by some (probably) dead French, post-modernist guy back in the 70’s. I did not bother to look it up because that would add another unnecessary layer of irony to this blog no one's going to read anyway. The theory says that the author’s intent should not count when we consume a piece of Art.
Yes, I did just use the word “consume” unironically. r/LateStageCapitalism anyone?
Anyway, this guy says we should ideally “consume” a work of Art independent of the context in which it was written. In other words, Art should be completely divorced from the Artist. The moment the reader purchases a Book, the Author is dead to him.
Given how flimsy our subjective interpretations of context and authorial intent tend to be, it does make sense to kill the Author remorselessly and immediately and embrace the subjective meaning we ascribe to the artwork because we probably won’t do much better. Subjectively looking at Art naturally flows from the Rational, Ben Shapiro-epic-intj-atheist way of thinking.
But does it?
We might think that we believe all Art is subjective but we don’t usually stop and stare at the patterns on the bark of a tree or get moved to tears by the sound of a concerto played by two horny songbirds. Unintentional coincidences may be beautiful, but they don’t always work. Most of the time, context matters.
In an increasingly connected world, the Artist is now more visible than ever. From writers who go on Book Tours and type aggressively corny Twitter updates to musicians whose uncomfortable interviews are watched by thousands of fans on YouTube and whose lyrics are analysed to the pulp on sites like Genius, the Author is everywhere. By being almost omnipresent, the Author manages to survive our murderous intentions.
Subjective interpretations of Art can be fulfiling but, newsflash:
We live in a society, bro.
Inter-subjective constructs surround us. From Money to Nations to Religion— a lot of things are inter-subjective constructs. They’re all in our heads and subjective but we’re sharing them with others and that satisfies the appetite of this social animal like nothing can.
It’s better for us to enjoy Wagner’s music and not dig furiously for the Racist undertones and ruin our experience. At the same time, understanding Authorial intent for a particularly pretentious and undecipherable piece of poetry can be helpful.
In conclusion, the Author is… kinda dead? We don’t know for sure.
For a more coherent, cohesive and enjoyable dive into this topic, check out this great video which inspired me to write this in the middle of the night:
https://youtu.be/MGn9x4-Y_7A
. . . . .
I am dead now.
Or am I? You decide. Stick around and see me live, Give me a follow (idk how this works?).
Cheesy af amirite gamer's?
Yes, I did just use the word “consume” unironically. r/LateStageCapitalism anyone?
Anyway, this guy says we should ideally “consume” a work of Art independent of the context in which it was written. In other words, Art should be completely divorced from the Artist. The moment the reader purchases a Book, the Author is dead to him.
Given how flimsy our subjective interpretations of context and authorial intent tend to be, it does make sense to kill the Author remorselessly and immediately and embrace the subjective meaning we ascribe to the artwork because we probably won’t do much better. Subjectively looking at Art naturally flows from the Rational, Ben Shapiro-epic-intj-atheist way of thinking.
But does it?
We might think that we believe all Art is subjective but we don’t usually stop and stare at the patterns on the bark of a tree or get moved to tears by the sound of a concerto played by two horny songbirds. Unintentional coincidences may be beautiful, but they don’t always work. Most of the time, context matters.
In an increasingly connected world, the Artist is now more visible than ever. From writers who go on Book Tours and type aggressively corny Twitter updates to musicians whose uncomfortable interviews are watched by thousands of fans on YouTube and whose lyrics are analysed to the pulp on sites like Genius, the Author is everywhere. By being almost omnipresent, the Author manages to survive our murderous intentions.
Subjective interpretations of Art can be fulfiling but, newsflash:
Inter-subjective constructs surround us. From Money to Nations to Religion— a lot of things are inter-subjective constructs. They’re all in our heads and subjective but we’re sharing them with others and that satisfies the appetite of this social animal like nothing can.
It’s better for us to enjoy Wagner’s music and not dig furiously for the Racist undertones and ruin our experience. At the same time, understanding Authorial intent for a particularly pretentious and undecipherable piece of poetry can be helpful.
In conclusion, the Author is… kinda dead? We don’t know for sure.
For a more coherent, cohesive and enjoyable dive into this topic, check out this great video which inspired me to write this in the middle of the night:
https://youtu.be/MGn9x4-Y_7A
. . . . .
I am dead now.
Or am I? You decide. Stick around and see me live, Give me a follow (idk how this works?).
Cheesy af amirite gamer's?
