The reading discusses about linking the author’s intention to the artwork and its implications. Even though a work is birthed from the author’s design or plan in his mind, it does not mean we should seek out the roots of the artist and his prestige into reading his book.
The text talks about how we are always seeking closure in work; to find explanation or meaning from creator. However, Barthes argues that that the author has no power over his words that belong to the reader who interprets them.That is to say the social and cultural indicators of the author is not correlated to how one interpret the text. The text is itself a thing of its own, and its value should judge on the words alone; what the word themselves actually say. The decoding of the symbols is for the reader alone, and the author and process of of writing is not of importance. Barthes’s notable examples include the Van Gogh’s madness and Tchaikovsky's vices. These two artists are renowned for their tragedy, hardship or extreme circumstances that pushes the value of the author into the work itself. As seductive as it is to bring the richness or sufferings the artists experienced to empower the work they produced, it is the art, in this case “language”, that speaks for itself. Simply, we are removing the ego from the artwork or text, and examining and understanding for what it is. Yet, it is tough to do so, the reader will associate the identity of author to valorize the text; trying to figure out the author’s intentions and the message or meaning he is trying to make
Instead of finding closure with the author or the artist, one should see a text as what it is, and from there make their own interpretations.
The work is what it is, period.
In summary, the reading suggests the detachment of the author from the writing and text he produced. It is similar to an acousmatic experience when listening to music, so instead of being concerned about hearing a sound without an originating cause to be seen, we are concerned with simply what the language is trying to communicate and it does not matter who was the one who wrote it.
On closer research, this text is a response and critique on Barthes’ thesis. While both agrees that the role of author has somehow empower the text they produced, however, in different ways. Foucault complicates the notion of what it means to be an author, he does by asking about the function of the author.
Reversal of required authorship in scientific and literary text
There is a need to seek out the identity of author and his background to make out the meaning of his text = author plays a role in our view of literary works
Historical analysis of discourse
Author makes a discourse of a subject possible, allowing for more divergence
I suppose the author’s intentions, conditioning, beliefs are part of his branding. We use the Gestalt theory between the relationship of the author and his production. The author can be akin to the whole, and the sum of the parts are his text.
Blurred distinction the valorization of production of artwork copies - in what sense is the new cast an original? (Rodin’s gates of hell) Is this not a violate of the period style
Citation as reproduction — everything we do is a reference to something that has been done, be it nature, paintings of old masters, technique. Hence, isn’t everything we do a copy?
Discourse of originality — In avant-garde, originality is something that everybody aspired as it possesses a new kind of origin. With the belief that one is the original creator, his or her prodution will share the same uniqueness.
The grid as a citation — A refusal of speech and a form of silence, hence a ground zero for artist to work on.
Representation > Picturesque ?
What if we do not repress the concept of copy — Since everything is a referent to something of the past. A depiction is a reference from one code to another.
Everything is a remix
Does it matter if we copy? Plagiarism as a negative form of author.
Is an experience and social activity a referent?
Does a copy or remix introduce a new form of discourse
A tree as an analogy; everything came from the roots, above the ground as a strong big trunk, then branches off in an endless replication
Michael Tovey’s Design Trends: We always look back into the past, maybe that’s all there really was
Eg. The Critique of book is an example of the discourse of reproduction and citation
In this course, we are creating our own branch / twig from the theories that have already been established*
As my comprehension of authorship progressed, I came to understand the third kind of authorship, “digital authorship”, as our digital footprints; what we upload, like, commented on the Internet. By using these authorship, companies like Google and Facebook cash in on our modes of interest and activity to synthesize a commodity or at least lead us to one through advertisements. Hence, the more time time we spend on the Internet, the more we are “writing” information for companies to valorize on. Hence, as stated in the book, “the digital transforms social activity into commodity forms”.
Status & behaviour inito commodity —Translation of agency apparent in history, biography, psychology > immaterial commodity
Other arguments / thesis mentioned in the book:
Digital technology reflects the capitalism in contemporary society while having an invisible framework > A voluntary authorship in which we give out personal information for the sake of convenience and accessibility
without considering the repercussions. It is has become a new normal for us to connect every app to our digital profile. We are under constant surveillance yet we do not take actions about it. Our privacy has been compromised and violated willingly, yet unknowingly.
The only way out is not to participate in the tools created by Google or Facebook or social media.
Unlimited potential without human intervention > Facebook content delivery algorithm
The veil of free cost,accessibility,unlimited production