I think it matters whether learning about the author's intent is going to be more fruitful in terms of your appreciation and understanding of the text, or if it's not. And so... Yeah. Me saying that makes me think, I think there's something that the real thing that we're after is a fruitful interpretation that allows us to appreciate the text in more depth. Often, maybe, certainly, sometimes the author'sintent is a big part of that. But sometimes it isn't. Sometimes we have no sense of the author's intended. It might even actually detract from a more fruitful interpretation of the text to know that. Then he would be like, it was poorly executed, right?
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: