This thread is on /lit/ and not /tv/ is because I feel /lit/ will be better able to answer my question and it applies to literature as well:
Does the artist's intention matter?
I was watching Welcome to Me, a movie about Kristen Wiig being a crazy person who wins the lottery and gets a vanity talk show. People love it and academics start praising her as a genius. A college student interviews her and asks her about her 'race-blind casting' to which she replies that the black actress she hired was "the prettiest that day." Of course this scene is begging the question about artist's intention, I was curious what academics have to say on this issue
And these reason I bring up the movie at all is because it frames the question in a plausible way, I know scholars argue over the intentions of crazy artists like Henry Darger, about the supposed gender/queer implications of his fantasy girls have dicks etc. and I'm sure they argue about other crazy artists
Thinly disguised homework thread.
On the off chance you actually care about the subject matter, all you're going to find here is a lot of goalpost-shifting between art having value as a medium of expression and art having value only to the audience.
You're asking the wrong questions. The artist's intention concerns the artist alone. We face another problem that whatever the artist intentions were, we can only access what he does and say. So if he does some work, I don't know what he intended, I do know what he said. I'll talk then about what he said. Of course, I read that message in a certain way, I have my own way of looking at it and it will show if I talk about it to you, nevertheless, I'd have no pretention to guess that the artist must have intended for his piece to show itself in the particular way in which I'm reading it just because I'm reading it in that particular way. And if you ought to talk to me about it and show a different perspective, I shall consider it and dialogue with it, it will change my perception in some way, sometimes radically, sometimes an almost invisible change. In the same way, were the artist talk to me about what he meant to do, what he intended with his piece and not, I'd consider it insofar as it would show me a different aspect of his work that I might have missed. Both cases, are, however my own readings of very different texts, that is, the texts of their speeches, both the artist and the spectator. That is because when the piece is done and shown, we are all spectators of it, including the artist, who faces what he has done, whether he is satisfied with it or not considering his intentions. Meanwhile, I'll look at it for the first time and see what I see as if it was all there is to see, with or without talking to other people or the artist, because I'll be at that point in space and time and life, with the knowledge that I have and don't have on it and the emotional experience to relate to it in a certain way. The artist who understands this as a threat to his message and to his intentions has a problem with his own production, this artist doesn't know how to deal with the relationship between what he intends and what he does (a matter everyone face). Our intentions may strike us as an internal force that drives our actions, but after something is done, it is what it is. That's why we so often hear that the art piece is the artist's child, in the same way that a parent produces a child but that child has a life of its own and it will meet different people and change itself at every encounter. After the child is born, after the piece is done, it is not the artist's anymore as his intentions were before, only his and no one else's.
/lit is really full of drama queens. That essay didn't even destroy Barthes himself as an artist.
You're the kind of faggot to say "art is dead" because whatever painting you see on buzzfeed links doesn't look like Raphaël's Galatea, aren't you ?