Roland
Barthes’s essay The Death of the Author (Barthes, R. 1967) meditates the
theory of the author not having sole possession over a text. ‘A text’ meaning
anything that is capable of being fabricated by a conscious mind which can be
interpreted by another. Barthes hypotheses argues that just because he or she
‘wrote’ the text doesn’t automatically make them the author. Barthes states
“The author is supposed to feed the book, … he maintains with his work the same
relation of antecedence a father maintains with his child.” (Barthes, R 1967
p.4) The action of being an audience becomes active rather than passive, resulting
in a joint authorship/ collaboration.
It’s
paramount to indicate that the audience is not the discoverer of the purpose, this
is something that is spontaneously uncovered at the exact moment of contact.
Barthes expresses the notion that “the modern writer (scripter) is born simultaneously
with his text, … and every text is eternally written here and now” (Barthes, R 1967 p.4) The audience must allow their
own assumptions to manifest, as no two individuals will have the exact same
outcome. The individual will have a unique multifaceted compilation of
different ideas, cultures, history etc that will influence their overall
perception. Barthes states “a text is not in line of words releasing a single
‘theological’ meaning (the ‘message’ of the Author – God) but a
multi-dimensional space in which a variety of writings, none of them original,
blend and clash” (Barthes, R, 1967 p. 4) Thus meaning that both author’s
written intentions are conceived from different existing concepts that they
weren’t originally the author of. Posing the question is any one person the
sole author of ‘a text’? Authorship not only titled for both ‘scripter’ and
‘audience’ but all preceding influences that conceive each unique perception.
Barthes expresses the notion that a text cannot be described
as finished till it is read, he states “To give an
Author to a text is to impose upon that text a stop clause, to furnish it with
a final signification, to close the writing” (Barthes, R. 1967 p. 5) Only then can
a text ever be portrayed as complete. It could be debated that his hypothesise
expresses the question of whether a text really exist without an audience if
the audience ultimately decides the overall outcome. Barthes concludes by
stating "the birth of the reader must be at the cost of the death of the
Author." (Barthes, R. 1967 p. 6) Thus emphases that the audience can’t
employ their own purpose till the ‘scripter’ allows them to do so, it’s a
collaboration of intentions that no sole persons can be the author of.
Marcel
Duchamp’s polemic speech The Creative Act (Duchamp, M. 1957)
investigates the cycle of the creative process. Duchamp expresses the notion
that when creating art there is two persons involved, the artist and the
audience. Duchamp’s analysis imposes questions regarding control, for instance,
“How much power does the artist actually have, as to how their art is perceived
by the otherness of society?” (Natesperling, 2012). This question poses the
impression that the artist’s loss of power is implemented by the presence of
their own audience. Duchamp is perceived as undermining the privileged position
of the title of ‘artist’ designating the individual, who is predominately
recognized as the singular/ overall curator of a composition. Duchamp states
that “the creative act is not performed by the artist alone; the spectator
brings the work in contact with the external world by deciphering and
interpreting its inner qualifications” (Duchamp, M. 1957) The audience bringing
in the ‘external world’ showcases the impact on how influential outside
influences can have on an individual’s overall perception. Thus, premeditating
the hypothesis that a piece of work is not simply made up of the creative
making of a composition but in conjunction with its reception by an audience.
The
interaction between the audience and the artwork is that the artists
participation in the creative act is solely as creator. Therefor the artist
actively depends on the contribution of the audience to categorises their work
as complete, rather than creating an artwork where its sole purpose is to be
appreciated. Duchamp states “the personal ‘art coefficient’ is like an arithmetical
relation between the unexpressed but intended and unintentionally expressed”
(Duchamp, M. 1957) thus creating a meaning of where the audience participates
in the act of artist unintentionally. The audience may overlook the intended
purpose of a piece if not expressed by the artist hence resulting in a new
profound purpose.
Umberto
Eco’s text The Open Work (Eco, U.1962) expresses the hypothesis that
there are two key elements that make up a piece of work, audience participation
as well as a composition having multiple meaning; usually implemented by the
artist. These two elements are mutually dependent on each other. Each element
may not have been fully anticipated in its outcome however it has fundamentally
been directed by the artist. When discussing Eco’s theory within The Open
Work it is paramount to understand the definition of ‘open work’. What is
‘open work’? An open work is forever a work in progress. “From an audience’s
perspective, all work is, in a sense, open.” (Park, S. 2006); it is perceived
as ‘open’ for interpretation from past experiences which are unique to the
individual. Eco declares “Information is, therefore, an additive quantity,
something that is added to what one already knows as if it were an original
acquisition” (Eco, U 1962 p. 45). These experiences will constitute from a
predisposed history, combined to allow an individual to fabricate their own
interpretation. Thus, implementing the notion an artwork requires audience
interpretation to conclude its purpose. Eco states “Every reception of a work
of art is both an interpretation and performance of it, because in every
reception the work takes on a fresh perspective for itself.” (Eco, U 1962 p.
49) Openness allows freedom of interpretation however the individual desires. A
new audience composes multiple meanings that can be forever evolving. Openness
is a fundamental part of perception, we can observe and interpret but
essentially never attain completion.
Both
parties – artist and audience – anticipate an outcome, but no outright outcome
can be decided, therefore meandering with no definitive end. It is pivotal to
communicate that not only are there two parties involved but a third party, the
curator, can bring additional influences on how a work is perceived. The ‘completed’
work, which exists through the interpretations of the audience, still belongs
to the artist in a sense, but must also be shared with the audience.
Consequently, there is no deprivation of ownership regarding the artist.
All
three critical texts by Barthes, Duchamp and Eco have coinciding hypotheses,
all indicate that the audience is vital to an artist and their work. All three
texts advocate that both artist and audience will fundamentally come out with
slightly or altogether contrasting perceptions. However, Barthes and Eco have corresponding
convictions, both expressing the notion that there can be no completely unique
creations, instead everything springing from existing influences. They both
state there are no sole ‘creators’ but the making is a collaboration with joint
authorship made up of three parties. Both artist and audience have a growing
pattern of individual experiences which make up the third party. Eco further
stating that these experiences are ever evolving in the external now, therefore
forever influencing future developments. Conflictingly, Duchamp states that the
author loses all authorship once an audience views the work, changing the
artworks original intention. Duchamp undermines the role of author classifying the
title as over privileged.
* * *
Looking back on my previous essay which looked at whether the audience is fundamental to deciphering the comprehensive conclusion to a composition there was a lot of key elements relevant to my research into the relationship between artist, audience and artwork. From this it was paramount to look through my past research and take key elements and make it relevant to my new investigation. There is already theories between the texts that back up the work of Abramovic. Creating both case studies before actually writing my dissertation helps me to look in-depth into each case study and evaluate it to the title before making connections between the two. I feel like it gives me a clearer understanding that is broad leaving nothing missed.
Research Investigated:
- Cultural Reader (2017) Short summary: Death of the Author - Roland Barthes Available at: http://culturalstudiesnow.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/roland-barthesdeath-of-author-summary.html (Accessed: 28 Sep 2018)
- Duchamp, M. (1957) The Creative Act. Available at: https://monoskop.org/images/7/7c/Duchamp_Marcel_1957_1975_The_Creati ve_Act.pdf (Accessed 22 Sep 2018)
- Echo, U (1962) The Open Work Available at: https://monoskop.org/images/archive/6/6b/20171110081108%21Eco_Umbert o_The_Open_Work.pdf (Accessed 27 Sep 2018)
- Haladyn, J. (2015) On “The Creative Act” Available at: http://toutfait.com/onthe-creative-act/ (Accessed 01 Oct 2018)
- Hermanos, M. (2009) CREATIVE ACT -Marcel Duchamp. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KuZlIyQPZI (Accessed 01 Oct 2018)
- Natesperling (2012) The Creative Act (by Marcel Duchamp) Available at: https://natesperling.wordpress.com/2012/09/05/the-creative-act-by-marcelduchamp/ (Accessed 01 Oct 2018)
- Park, S (2006) Understanding “Open Work” in Interactive Art Available at: summit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/2472/etd2275.pdf (Accessed 02 Oct 2018)
- Perkins, L. (2014) 'The Death of the Author' Simplified (Roland Barthes). Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkQsRVrWM6c (Accessed 29 Sep 2018)
- The Narratologist (2014) Literary Theory: ‘Death of the Author’ by Roland Barthes. Available at: http://www.thenarratologist.com/literary-theory/literarytheory-death-of-the-author/ (Accessed: 28 Sep 2018)
Comments
Post a Comment