When an artist actually speaks out about their work of art, I feel like it fucks it up because so many people will naturally just like, oh, that's what it is that, right? Like, they'll feel like they've been like, like I was saying at the beginning, like it's bet settling. That's what makes it good. Like, it is, that's why. So take ecclesiastes, yeah, texts that we have discussed. And I also just wonder in general whether biblical texts and mythic texts are in their own category when it comes to something like this. But I don't think either of us, as we're talking about that work
What’s the meaning of a work of art? Does the text mean just what the author intends it to mean? Does it matter what Kubrick and Arthur C. Clark thinks about the end of 2001? Or is the artist’s interpretation just one interpretation among many once the text is out in the world? We explore the question of authorial intent, and brace yourselves - this is just about as postmodern as David gets.
Plus – do we have what it takes to get an invite to the thought criminals club?
Links
The Party is Canceled [newyorker.com]
Was I Wrong About The Irishman? by Thomas Flight [youtube.com]
Authorial Intent [wikipedia.org]
Sponsored By: