Some people have argued it's a silly debate because let's, if the intentions are what create the meaning that of the work, then all you need is the work. And to which people have said, well, what if he's an incompetent communicator of his intentions? So we can be kind of yeah, and two artists who are two actors who are so good at camp is a style of acting made it into something that John Wu never meant it to be. I do think that our interpretation like not to get hung up on meaning, but just say, well, however you interpret,. Like even at a concrete level, interpret what's going on!
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: