starting to suspect the great human binary divides people who (can? do?) separate empirical claims and abstractions generally from Machiavellian social considerations, and those who can't or won't
-
-
I'm thinkin derrida in the main but really the entirety of death of the author
-
okay, i can see it. but isn't that just a basic ass accurate observation, that it matters to us what we read not what dude was trying to write, that like all things is subject to sturgeon's law in what people do with it?
-
that seems basic-ass, yeah; but mainly i see Death of the Author used to claim that any random idiot's wilfully ignorant misinterpretation of a text is just as valid as an actual analysis that engages with authorial intent
-
This is irksome because if art is anything at all, it's communication of authorial intent -- art is work with a result intended to induce a sequence of emotional states in the experiencer of the work's result. DotAuthor denies that communicative act.
-
Probably ought to hop in and defend the core pomo critique as basically correct as written but almost universally misunderstood and misapplied by contemporary enthusiasts "power games are pervasive!" --> "the outgroup has power and is abusing it"
-
yeah, absolutely stipulated i just want to be able to better apprehend what is actually going on, mang is that so much to ask
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.