I have to admit that I was not completely captivated by these readings but id did find some of what they talked about interesting. Foucault’s mention that an authors name on a piece of writing changes how the text is viewed is true. I don’t think a text always needs an author, or at least I don’t think we always need to know who the author is. However, it is true that sometimes we need to know who made the piece to prove its authenticity. If you do not know whom to look for sometimes you can end up with false information.
Along with that is the point that Barthes makes when he mentions that we look to the authors/creators to understand the piece. I personally don’t see why we have to know who the person is to understand something. On the other hand, know who the creator is and knowing a little about their life opens up a different understanding of their work.
Who the author is shouldn’t dictate what people think of the text but unfortunately it does. I believe the same should go for art. Art does not need a creator to be appreciated and critiqued. Sometimes I think it would be better if one does not know the artist because then the value is not based on who made it but the work itself. We put too much emphasis on “who made this and that” that I feel like we lose sight of the piece itself.
Out of all of these readings I found hers the most appealing. It is probably due to the fact that she directly relates writing to visual art and that makes me feel like what she is writing about it important for me as an artist. The following paragraph shows some of the things that really stood out to me.
Sontag writes, “It doesn’t matter whether artists intend, or don’t intend, for their works to be interpreted… If excessive stress on content provokes the arrogance of interpretation, more extended and more thorough descriptions of form would silence. What is needed is a vocabulary - a descriptive, rather than prescriptive, vocabulary - for forms…The function of criticism should be to show how it is what it is, even that it is what it is, rather than to show what it means.”
For a while now the world of Fine Arts has been focusing heavily on content or concept. Concept is important it is what really sets us apart from each other but, at the same time, it is not the only thing about art that matters. I agree that we have lost some of our senses and we no long see art. We look at it and judge by content, pondering over a piece of art and talking psychobabble with each other when I wonder if we even what we are saying. I understand that there was a time when content had to play a key role so art could change and grow but we should not leave the past behind us completely.
