I found this task really challenging because I am not used to reading and analysing such complex texts. I felt quite overwhelmed in the session so I am hoping that by going over the text and my notes again I will be able to get a better understanding of the topic.
What message is Barthes trying to convey?
I think Barthes is trying to say that we should look at what a piece of text is actually telling us rather than learning about the author and using these facts to draw information from a text. He tells us that it doesn't matter who the person is who wrote it, all that matters is the content of the writing. When an author is well known for either a style or something in his or her personal life, it is easy to let this detract from the work itself and we don't have an impartial view on the work's overall success. To summarise this, Barthes writes "to give a text and author is to impose a limit on that text". He also says that the author is seen as a "father to his child" when in fact, a father and son are two totally different people only connected by their bloodline. The same with the author and text, there is sometimes nothing in common between the two other than that one is the other's creator.
He also speaks about how "the existence of writing" lies with the reader rather than the author. I think he is trying to say that the author can publish a piece of writing which he has crafted himself but the writing only really exists once someone else has read it and formed their own interpretation of the text. I think the quote "the birth of the reader must be at the cost of the death of the author" is summing up what happens when the reader takes in information from a text and creates their own idea of what is happening which may stray completely from the author's initial intentions, therefore making these intentions void. By saying that "a text's unity lies not in its origin but in its destination" Barthes is suggesting that the most important part of this whole process is how the reader relates to and interprets the text because this is how the writing is going to live on and have a future.
Another idea he brings up is that no idea is original anymore and an author's writing is "a tissue of quotations drawn from the innumerable centres of culture". I think he is saying that the author must have used things that they have encountered or learnt about or heard about in their life time and their writing is an amalgamation of information from a lot of existing sources. It has probably been pieced together in a new and individual way but the pieces themselves are not new ideas.
How does this impact on illustration?
This impacts on illustration because and artist's reputation and previous work should not define the success of their current work, the same way that a text's success shouldn't be based on a previously formed opinion of the writer. This can suppress an illustrator's creativity because if they know that they will always be likened to a previous way of working they may be reluctant to experiment with something new. It could also deter illustrators from developing a style at all if they think they are always going to be associated with it.
When looking at an illustration, knowing about the illustrator and their intentions can sometimes ruin the initial connection you have with a piece of imagery. If you thought that it meant one thing and you connected with it emotionally on some level, it shouldn't matter what the illustrator was aiming for. All that should matter is the effect it has on you as the viewer and you can draw your own conclusions from it, whether these match with the thoughts of the creator or not. As an illustrator it is important to make work that people will connect with but the reason why each individual connects with the work is useless information to the illustrator because it is a personal thing to them. It works both ways, just like how the work can be personal to the creator but this doesn't matter so much to the viewer.
It could be considered dangerous for practitioners to give too much away about their personal life because if people know about their lifestyle, likes and dislikes, etc, then they may form a conclusion from this that they won't like any of your work because personally, they have nothing in common. When in reality, a practitioner's interests and their way of working should be considered two totally separate and unrelated things because there is no rule to say that they are linked in any way.
The thought that no idea is original anymore is really relevant to illustration. We are surrounded by so much visual information that we see every day and all of this is floating around in our heads waiting to be put onto paper in some creative splurge. It isn't always a conscious thing but we take inspiration from things we have seen before and translate this into our own work. Like I said before, all of the little pieces have been seen or used before so these are not original, the only thing that can be original is the arrangement in which we put them back together. On the other hand, it could be argued that everything we make is in fact original because nobody has been in this place and time before creating this exact artefact, but thats getting a bit deep.
How could it relate to my chosen theme?
My chosen theme is culture and there are a few quotes and ideas from the text that I think I can link to this.
The fact that no idea is original is very relevant to culture in my opinions because as supposedly 'new' cultures and subcultures arise, you realise that their opinions and principles normally stem from another existing or past culture. Barthes says that "the text is a tissue of quotations drawn from the innumerable centres of culture" which speaks about the idea of taking influences from lots of different things and bringing them together to create something, however the thing you have created is not new because all of its components were already existing. I see it a bit like recycling. I think this idea is also true for fashion and music which are key themes within culture, a perfect example of this is vintage fashion where the whole point of the trend is to wear something that has been or looks like it has been worn before in a past time.
If the relationship of the author to his book is considered as "a father to his child" then I think this has a lot to say about culture and their original leaders and founders. We often judge things through the experience of its creator which could be the reason why there is such intolerance of certain cultures. I think this is especially relevant in religion because we tend to judge modern religious followers by the initial texts of their religion from thousands of years ago and use what these stand for as a measure of deciding what these people stand for. In my opinion, it is the original texts and sets of beliefs that are holding religions back from being able to function well in modern times because it restricts them from evolving. This relates to Barthes text because it is saying that the text can only live on "at the cost of the death of the author" which suggests that the product itself (the religion) needs to break away from its creator so that it can have a future.
Art and music play a large part within culture so I think the idea that an artist's work is "tyrannically centred on the author" explains the reasoning for a lot of famous artists' and musicians' successes and failures. "The explanation of a work is always sought in the man or woman who produced it" explains why we know so much about the lives of famous painters and musicians because their lives are seen as equally, if not more important than their work. I think the entirety of the historical cultural knowledge we have nowadays would be different if we took a step away from looking at the people themselves and used only their work to define what happened in a certain period or movement in the arts.
No comments:
Post a Comment