Week 7: Authorship (Roland Barthes & Sherrie Levine)
Blog Post Topic:
"The Death of the Author"
by Roland Barthes
&
"Statement"
by Sherrie Levine
“The Death of the Author” was our main reading for the week which captured complicated concepts around interpreting an author’s work separate from themself. My foremost understanding of his ideas is that a piece of writing has a voice of its own that can be distinct from the author who wrote it. Although the work can be part of a person’s voice and the author’s perspective can be very involved or helpful, it’s also possible that a piece’s voice can live on within its own life and context which can be different and/or longer lasting than the author. I’m usually not a fan of separating an artist from their work because I think knowing about the author often does tell us crucial information about the piece’s message, but I do also have to agree with Barthes’ writings that it’s possible a powerful or unique voice doesn’t need its author to help it speak, and also that these creations have a life of their own as their own existence.
I think that from the audience’s point of view, we don’t always get the opportunity to know much about the author. Occasionally that seems to be a detriment, as we can learn later about the person behind the art that their perspective was a large part or bias in the work. Studying the context, however, might get you to the same conclusion anyway. I think that interpreting a work based on its author isn’t the right way to think of it, but rather evaluating the context of how the work was created which does include the people, time, physical place, and all aspects existing at and before that time. We are lucky to have so much access to that information, but the author is only one part. A possibly important one, but still only one. It seems to me that the author’s point of view is commonly emphasized as a primary interpretation because ownership is so highly valued in our Western world. Thinking of the way colonizers have historically been changing the world leads me to believe that many people have had to adopt that “take-over” value as a part of the culture. Over time it seems to have become common to feel a sense of your own identity in the things that you keep close by, especially your artwork made with material which existed around and before you.
 |
| White Knot: 1 (Casein on plywood) Sherrie Levine, 1986 guggenheim.org/artwork/12967 |
I was surprised to find the secondary reading by Sherrie Levine very short and intentional. It is an obviously plagiarized paragraph consisting of words already written by Barthes, and only changes the concept from authors & writing to artists & artwork. I personally already had this perspective while I was reading Barthes’ work, but I find it interesting that she made a point to make this her whole point and use his own concept as an example in the process. Barthes brings up the idea that “original” work isn’t possible because all things call to more origins, like language does. We all motivate and influence each other, and copying is the name of the game!
Barthes, Roland, Stephen Heath, and Mary Dove. The Death of the Author. London, Paris: Fontana, 1977.
Levine, Sherrie. “Statement.” Style, March 1982.
Hi, Zee! Great post. As a writer, I'm a little tied on the idea that writing should stand completely independent of the author. My biggest thing with that is the time, effort, and passion that gets put into writing. Does all of that just "go away" once the writing is published?
ReplyDeleteReader interpretation will always be widely varied, though, and there is beauty in that too. It's a complicated topic.
As for Levine, I can see a certain performative "art" in the stunts she's pulled. It's not art I particularly enjoy or appreciate all that much, but it is undeniably clever.
Thanks Alicia! I appreciate your comment! I think that the context and environment of the writing/artwork does include the creator's work on it, itself. It makes sense that all of that time and passion should count for something and not just "go away" once it is released into the world! Instead, I understood Barthes to mean that we are left with a disconnected voice that says something whether the creator is able to obviously communicate any of that which went into it. We see an end product, but the history or author may never be known well to us as an audience, but still speak volumes on its own. To me, all of that time, effort, and passion is existing within the work, and goes no where at all because it is *who* the author was that died, not their work. If anything, that is exactly what lives on.
DeleteI also agree that Levine's work is performative art and accomplished the curious message that she had to say. It's interesting to study, but I think that there is only so much of an audience for that kind of work and there are actually important matters to focus on, anyway.