Final Blog: Death of an Author

While reading this essay, I started thinking as soon as I read the opening paragraph. The idea that "the birth of the reader must be at the cost of the death of the Author" is a fantastic one and really made me thing about the real disassociation between the physical artist or author of a piece of work and the person reading it hundred, or even just a year ago. We don't understand most of how our brains work never mind the minds of others.

The question of the hour is: Is the result of a piece of work (whether art, literature, music etc.) biased to the creator? This idea was present throughout the reading "Death of an Author" and it made me start thinking. Going through school, we have been handed books that are "classics". Books like Hamlet, The Great Gatsby, Great Expectation, Catcher in the Rye, etc. But what determines these books so great, and if they are so great, why do so many people dislike them. Many critics of these books will often say they appreciate the quality of the language, but not the meaning or subject. That's like saying someone likes the colors of your art piece, but not the actual piece itself. But what really goes on in the mind of the critic. Do they genuinely dislike the content of a piece of art/literature or could do they just not understand and therefore find it unappealing. Especially today, as a society we have a tendency to always want to be right and understand. This was a problem and continues to be a problem with much abstract art. When we are posed with an image that presents unrecognizable forms, when we are left to decipher a jumble of color (or no color), lines and shapes, how can one's opinion not be influenced by their frustration. I have experienced this feeling myself when looking at art. Many times people have thought one thing and then the artist tells them their reasonings and it's different. And when they don't match up, or one can not decipher the piece at all, most people will end up putting the blame on the beholder. There have been instances where I have thought a piece of art or literature to be "stupid" or "not interesting" simply because I could not understand.

As humans we not only like to shift negative attention off of ourselves but we also want to appear more intelligent than the next person, as it is seen as "richer" and classier. These feelings aren't always conscious either. Many times we subconsciously feel this way and it feels natural to express it. Therefore, with all these different factors, it's hard to know the real reason behind a negative critique of an artist's or author's work. And it becomes especially difficult with time. As the age of a piece grows (essentially after the death of the author or artist), the true reasonings behind the work become more obscure. As more people study a piece, critique it, perform it or translate it, the more it gets shaped into something different than the author or artist most likely intended. And as a work stands vacant of the creator, the work becomes an extension of them. The piece transforms from "what is this piece about?" but to "why did the creator do this?" Many creators of art or literature, for example Edgar Allen Poe or Van Gogh, were said to have mental illnesses. I'm not saying that this is untrue, however life is a game of telephone. Many mental illnesses, especially just 50 years ago when technology was much more limited, are diagnosed by doctors based off of suggested signs common to the disease. Therefore, a diagnosis, especially back in say Hamlet's time where the smallest difference in behavior became extreme, begins as a bias. And from there, connotations associated with certain illnesses will create more bias and as research and the human mind develops, so do the diseases, thus forming another bias. Therefore, this is just another example of how an artist or author can be labeled and critiqued off of his work and the people who are just trying to comprehend it or think they comprehend it and release their biases (along with the biases they already have towards certain subjects, styles, or time periods) against what the original intent may have been. This is why I sometimes think of art, music, literature and other forms of documented creativity as timeless sculpture because the ever-changing world and societal influences and rotation of new people with new minds and ideas will constantly morph a piece into their own thoughts and opinions. And there will always be a critic who tries to make those ideas morph the "image" of a man that no one alive now has ever even seen, not alone talked to.