2008 Fall: Theoretical Constructions in Contemporary Art

I found it interesting that perhaps the "Author" doesn't exist and is only an accumulation, a random patchwork, of quotations and other writings he or she has read or experienced. Thus, the "Author" has no real identity, and can only imitate that which he or she has seen before. The "Author" can never be "original." However, I think that one could also argue the opposite: since every written (or spoken) sentence is different from any other sentence, anything and everything any author writes is "original." No one has ever written the sentence: "The mother cat carried the baby cat into the tree, where they both decided to hunt bluebirds." Isn't this sentence an "original" sentence? Isn't everything created, "original"?

Just as the reader is more and more becoming a valuable and even necessary element in the equation of the author and his or her writing, so is the viewer becoming more and more an element of the equation of the artist and his or her creation. It seems to me that modern art has increasingly saught to elicit a reaction in the viewer, to provoke, disturb, and engage, and therefore modern art invites the viewer to be a part of the process of creation. The mental effort required on the part of the viewer becomes a part of the artwork itself. As Barthes says, "the birth of the reader must be at the cost of the death of the Author."

However, perhaps one could argue that even the viewer (or reader) himself or herself doesn't "exist": there is never only one reader or viewer, and the readers/viewers themselves are also nothing but an accumulation of experiences "drawn from the innumerable centers of culture," and will inevitably interpret the art or writing in as many ways as there are viewers. To me, the "quality" of a work of art is its most important aspect, and the more an artwork is finished inside the viewer's mind, rather than in the hands of the artist, the more the interpretation of that artwork becomes subjective, and the more difficult it becomes to gauge the actual "quality" of that artwork.

At the start of this essay I strongly disagreed to Barthe’s bold statement that “writing is the destruction of every voice, of every point of origin.� After further reading I could understand his criticism of the reader to try to single-mindedly understand the work of the author, but still cannot entirely agree with his radical approach to this thought. I agree that considering the author’s objective could impose a limit to the reader’s interpretation, but I disagree that a reader must entirely free his or her self from the author in order to understand all the layers of the text.

Barthe’s ideas easily translate to the relationship between an artist and their work. More often than not the meaning of an artwork is much more dependent on the audience than the artist’s own personal ideas or intent. Of course as the creator of a work I have specific intentions. My own personal history and they way I internalize life has a strong impact the work I make. When I put that work out there without any kind of artist statement, I, the creator, become removed from the piece. But if the viewer happens to know me, has seen my previous work, or has read my artist statement, then according to Barthe they are automatically limited and have a single-minded interpretation. If this was true, then why would we, as a community of artists, spend time critiquing and listening to each other talk about our work. We would all live in individual bubbles so as not to learn too much about one another for risk of a limited analysis of the work.

Thus bringing us to Barthe’s ideas on criticism. He says that we cannot ever know what the author truly intended, and if we do fully decipher the text than this puts a close to the writing. I agree that if we did know exactly what the author, or artist, intended there would be no discussion or writings about the work. But I think various interpretations of the work can still occur by knowing a little bit about the creator and their views. Artwork does stand apart from the artist as its own entity, but it was thoughtfully constructed by an individual and therein lays an inevitable link between the two.

Whenever I hear the term "death of the author" I can't help but think of a party where a slightly tipsy friend of mine chided another friend. He had just seen Crispin Glover's movie "What Is It?" during which actors with Down's Syndrome mutilate slugs. He expressed some distaste for it, but then said something along the lines of, "Well, I guess he's the artist so he knows what he's doing, and maybe I just don't understand him," to which my tipsy friend shouted, "It's called death of the author, moron!"

I had to agree with her and Barthes on that one, that a work of art or literature should be judged on its own merits by the viewer or reader, without having to take into account the creator's past, personality, or actual intentions. The meanings read by the viewer and the reactions caused by the art are valid, though they may not match the artist's intention. In fact, I think it is quite a freeing notion for artist and viewer to think that the artist does not have to have a ‘secret’ meaning, as Barthes says, to convey to the public. "We know now that a text is not a line of words releasing a single ‘theological’ meaning (the ‘message’ of the Author-God) but a multi-dimensional space in which a variety of writings, none of them original, blend and clash." As a viewer of art, I also think that some artworks can be experienced more fully when approached not a puzzle to be figured out, but an experience. And as an artist, it is comforting to think of the ‘death of the author/artist’ when I am making work. It is in fact frightening that my work may be interpreted as me confiding in the viewer about myself-- I’d prefer that the viewer concentrate on the artwork rather than try to connect it back to my life.

I also accept Barthes statement that art and literature is a hodge-podge of ideas, images, and bits of text from the world, strung together in a specific way. As Barthes says, "The text is a tissue of quotations drawn from the innumerable centres of culture." Photography fits in nicely with this notion. In photography, particularly with documentary photography, it's very clear that the image is not a product of the photographer conjuring it up from his or her mind. An event happened, and the photographer is merely using that view of the world and that moment in time for his art. Perhaps as a result of the difference in ‘borrowing’ images with a camera vs. creating images/texts with one’s own hand causes people to view photographers differently than authors or painters. Unlike with painting and literature, I gather that most photographers’ personalities and lives aren't well known, aren’t necessarily intertwined with their art. (Two major exceptions I can think of are Diane Arbus and Francesca Woodman, who both committed suicide, leaving people to look for clues in their work.)

When reading this essay, I was immediately reminded of the conversation we began in class about whether or not there should be a short artist statement next to a piece of artwork in a gallery or museum. There were varying opinions as to how the writing informs, enlightens, or clouds the viewer’s interpretation and enjoyment of the work. Barthes seems to be suggesting that knowing anything about the artists’ history, or even general perspective, imposes a limit upon the power of the work. He argues that there is no way for anyone to know what the artist truly intended, and that allowing the work to speak for itself ensures that there will not be a singular interpretation. In essence, the viewer defines the meaning of the piece, rather than the artist.

I’m not sure I can really come down firmly on one side or the other of this argument. When I’m in a contemporary art museum or gallery space, I often appreciate a bit of information from the artist. For me, knowing a bit about the politics, history, or even ethnicity of the artist can sometimes shed enough light to deepen my experience. This is not to say that I’m never disappointed by being given too much information through which to filter my observations; sometimes the work IS more meaningful to me when I’m allowed to determine its meaning based on my own life experience. However, what if I am completely ignorant of the issues the artist is addressing? If I know a bit about what the piece is meant to be about, won’t my general experience be enriched? Even so, most people in class seemed to agree that some of the most valuable critiques they received were ones during which they, the artists, were not allowed to speak. They could not defend their work or, more importantly, give any information to the viewers as to their intent in creating the work. Although I have never received such a critique, I would imagine that much of the comments’ value is a result of the viewer’s untainted, clean, unique perspective. In this sense, the viewer’s experience IS limited once the artist’s intent is revealed.

I like what Areca said about feeling somewhat comforted by the “death of the artist� while making work. An enormous part of my own process, which includes making items that others will re-contextualize and use in the intimacy of their own kitchen, is accepting the fact that no matter what I choose to do and why, on some level the viewer and user will create his or her own meaning and experience from the work. Knowing this does take some of the pressure off at times, and makes me feel more free in my decision-making process. However, I do also want the viewer to think about certain things while using the piece. So, how can I make an object that allows the user to define her own daily experience and relationship with that object, but that also subtly directs her thoughts towards the issues I’d like to address? How can we all do this in our work?

I had a hard time wrapping my mind around Barthes’ Death of the Author. Maybe I did not understand the point of his essay, but after reading the text three times, I felt that I disagreed with it. I remember an argument I had with an art history professor at my undergraduate University. My professor argued that an artist’s role in art history ended at making the object, and at best maybe the artist could only contribute further by being psychoanalyzed. He stated firmly that it was the role of the art critic and the art historian, to define an artworks success, meaning, and place in art history, and what they had to say was more valuable and valid than anything the artist had to say. I thought this was bullshit then and I think it is bullshit now.

Duchamp argued the importance of both the artist and spectator. Cannot this be true, for the author and the reader? If an author writes from their experience an essential human truth, and the reader disseminates that human truth and can relate to it through their own experiences, isn’t that successful communication. Is one person’s experience more valuable than the other? Is one person’s truth more valuable than the other?

Maybe I missed the point, but I feel that Barthes is the pearl hunter that only takes the pearl and throws away the oyster.

From what I have been able to gather Roland Barthes main thesis about authorship is not unlike Duchamps. The first dealing with literature and the second with art objects. The core of the idea seems to be that firstly, everything an author or artist does is built on the foundation of the collective knowledge of their predecessors and secondly once we create something it takes on a life of it's own and is forced to speak for itself. It is up to the viewer or reader to make sense of it. The author or artist can not be there to explain it or defend it.

Like Bart, I too had a difficult time with Barthes writing. It really took dissecting many of the ideas to put them into terms I could understand. After talking to some older grads about it I found that there are multiple translations of this text. The version that is from the original book, though it was still challenging, was much more clear, both in translation and in readability. The writing seemed to flow more naturally where as the internet version was clunky and confusing. As a graphic designer I am also aware of the effect of fonts and formatting on ones ability to read. Times Roman is much easier to read than 14pt helvetica bold sprawling across the entire width of an 8.5" x ll" sheet of paper. Interestingly enough this helps to illustrate Barthes point. Once some one writes something it is out of their hands. It is up to the reader to make sense of it. In our case this becomes more difficult because we aren't even reading Barthe we are reading a translation or interpretation of Barthe. In the case of the internet version we are reading a translation that does not stand up to the rigors of a published book.

An idea that I thought was important not only in content but in the comparison of the quotes of both translations are as follows: "for Mallarme, as for us, it is language which speaks, not the author; to write is to reach" the second is as such: "For him, for us too, it is language which speaks not the author; to write is, through a prerequisite impersonality". I still have trouble with the second version even though I understand the first. What Barthe and his translators are trying to say is that the act of writing is exposing your ideas to the general consciousness. As a writer you are taking a chance, as I am now, sending your ideas out into the sea of collective knowledge and hoping that the readers or viewers get out of it what you intend.

I absolutely agree that we can never detect precisely what the writer intended. Just like we can never perceive something the same way as another person. That original intention and feeling you had in the creation of art will always be with you. I also believe the artist can never see the work of art they created through the eyes of the spectator. So what I think Barthes means when he says 'the death of the author is necessary for the birth of the reader' is that the second the reader begins his or her journey into the text, the original intention of the author is lost because we can never perceive something exactly the same as someone else. The text or artwork or song now has a life of its own, a new life inside the spectator's unique mind.

I liked what Rowan pointed out saying 'perhaps the Author doesn't exist and is only an accumulation, a random pathwork, of quotations and other writings he or she has read or experienced.' Every color, sound, texture, material already exists out in the world. We as humans are the only sentient beings that pull them together in an expressive manner to communicate something on another level to each other. Or are we all just mediators of these bits and pieces of information?

I feel Barthes and Duchamp are saying similar things in that both the spectator and reader are necessary for the text or artwork to be 'complete' or 'communicated' by the author or artist. But Barthes is on the literal text boat while Duchamp is driving the visual train. Barthes is working with neutral symbols that already have a specific meaning put to them that is more or less agreed upon-text, written language. Duchamp's writing is less black or white in the sense that with the visual arts, interpretation is subjective.

Williams focuses much of his essay on identity, which is a topic that seemingly many critics and philosophers place importance. Especially in a global economy identity blurs, since life is no longer centered on the same values. Importance isn’t placed on religion or specific geographical locations as a community. People look for other ways to fulfill that need of belonging and corporations rise to the occasion. “Advertising plays an increasingly important role, not only guaranteeing demand and in creating a sense of community around the values of consumerism, but in slowly eroding the artistic standards…�
Identity, however, isn’t of primary importance to me. I’m also preoccupied with imaging utopia and apocalypse. The quotation, “…undermining the capacity of individuals to imagine anything different, anything better.� It’s interesting not only in the context of society’s inability to imagine a better product, but a better world. Thinking about a utopia is a practice in imaging a better place.

I agree with Areca that it would be freeing for art to be devoid of some secret meaning. Although, I don’t really think it’s possible. The audience supposes that an artist or writer has something in mind when creating a piece, and for them that is the true meaning. They are only guessing. The audience first has to own the fact that their interpretation is the only meaning. And if the meaning of the work is the audience’s response to the work, then every work of art has as many meanings as it does audience members. To me that is very inspiring to try to make work that is as accessible as possible.

I agree with Areca that it would be freeing for art to be devoid of some secret meaning. Although, I don’t really think it’s possible. The audience supposes that an artist or writer has something in mind when creating a piece, and for them that is the true meaning. They are only guessing. The audience first has to own the fact that their interpretation is the only meaning. And if the meaning of the work is the audience’s response to the work, then every work of art has as many meanings as it does audience members. To me that is very inspiring to try to make work that is as accessible as possible.

For me, one of the most instructive elements of Barthes’s essay was his discussion of Greek tragedy as a form based on “perpetual misunderstanding� and double meaning. While each character mistakenly understands only one possible meaning of a piece of language, the audience recognizes both. Even today, this ancient form of dramatic irony is deeply affecting, and for good reason – nearly everyone has personal experience with a miscommunication that damages a relationship. Furthermore, the audience becomes an active participant in the drama, as they are given the responsibility of recognizing the hidden failures of communication that fuel the development of tragic events. Oddly, there’s a certain superficial similarity between the Greek form of tragic doublespeak and the corny humor of the pun. Perhaps there’s a new essay waiting to be written about the lofty origins of the pun. Or perhaps there ought to be a new form of pun-fueled Midwestern tragedy…

In any case, I think that Barthes makes an important point that the interpretation of language is a subjective pursuit, influenced by the experiences and biases of the reader. In addition, I believe that he raises important questions about the god-like authority attributed to the canonized authors of Western literature. However, in the end it’s profoundly hypocritical to insist that there are many readings of a text, and then to denounce a reading which is informed by knowledge of the text’s context. To argue against the pursuit of knowledge, to argue against the relevance of context is sheer stupidity.

Finally, when applying this theory to art instead of writing, I have to agree with Bart. Total bullshit. The death of the artist, rather than being a liberating event, becomes a way to silence and marginalize the creative working class. The artist is reduced to a silent wage laborer in the culture factory, producing objects that will be contextualized and marketed by dealer or gallery. In the end, the death of the artist gives birth to a new author who is afforded godlike authority over spectator and artist alike: the critic.

The intentions of the author are unrelated to what the reader gets from the text. This is the point I got from Barthes Essay, The Death of the Author. I agree this is a perspective that rings true, but the multilayered essence of creation and exposure to society does take all things into account, the age, sex, education of the author (and the reader for that matter) are part of the text, part of the expectations and experience. When it comes to intention I agree that people will get what they want and it will differ from each other. It is up to the reader to own their thoughts and not place their mindset on the author. This is the same point Duchamp is making when he separates the artist from himself and gives the spectator the power.

Death of the Author breaks down and rebuilds ideas of the relationship between the writer and the reader. What I like most was that the reader is held responsible; this is a time where the reader can no longer blame the author for brought up emotions or elevate the author, but open their own minds to their own creative analysis of the text. This idea must have offended some authors as it takes the power away from them. They are simply giving birth to the text. I think this is a little short sided. Giving birth (as in writing) does take nurturing and coddling, but the words do stand alone once in place. The process is fully the author’s, they could care less what the reader thinks, because their hard work is done.

I may be reiterating the points but the essay seems to be restating this process of text manifestation and consumption over and over but using different words. This was difficult to keep reading, I read it twice and still spaced out during certain passages, but I did get a lot from the general idea and line, Text is a tissue of quotations drawn from innumerable centers of culture, is a beautiful way to see writing and words as their own entity.

I do not agree with the “death� Barthes expressed in the text, “The
Death of the Author.� I believe that there is no such thing as a
“neutral� writing. Each writers composes words in a unique form and the
expression cannot simply be lost just because it was written. Barthes
argues that “...the writer can only imitate a gesture that is always
anterior, never original.� and I may have to agree that what we write
comes from our “dictionary� that contains all the words we've learned
from others. But if one starts saying that, then we would lose the meaning
of communication. Words are only effective if the receiver understands
them. In order for someone to understand a word spoken or written by anyone
else, they both have to share the same “dictionary�. The completely
“original� text would serve for nothing.

I also do not agree with the idea of losing the sense of writer as origin.
Take Duchamp's writing for example. I read and understand his theories
because I know who he is and what kind of work he makes. I contextualize
the information in association with the author's backgrounds. If the
argument is that reader should be able to read the content without the
context of the author, then those who chose not to know about author can
simply focus on the content and not to the author. It is the reader to
determine the hierarchy of importance in the information, and it is the
writer who should choose either his or her information should be revealed
or not. Those decisions should not be determined by a third person.

Anonymous writer reminds me of the Internet. If the author is all
“dead� or become anonymous then the fear is that some writers might
start to care less about their responsibilities in the content they expose
to the public. Choosing a book by the author is certainly not a minor
option. Being able to find and select a good author is definitely a fair
option for both sides.