A place to talk about art on Farcaster. Artwork created by jacob.eth

Do you subscribe to the death of the author?

Do you think the dominant concept in an artwork is not determined by the author's intention or by the viewer's interpretation?

(please don't answer "both", I'm asking where you're primarily leaning to)

https://chainleft.art

Dad, data scientist, blockchain native artist.

Power consolidation=evil.

Enjoyer of human-made and machine-made jpegs on the blockchain | Member of GrailersDAO, Station3 and ARC | linktr.ee/buffets.eth

I would lean towards the artist's intention much more, when trying to appreciate an artwork. 

My emotional and intellectual reaction to the artwork should be secondary imo, unless it was the artist's intention to deliberately leave open the interpretation of his/her work to the viewer.

So this is the space I live in - I think the intent matters, especially for the kinds of art I'm into; but then if the social context changes, then maybe we'd need to metaphorically kill the intent of the creator.

I'm not too familiar with Barthes' concept, but I'd say the artwork is mostly defined by the social space in between author and viewer, ie the context defines both the author's intentions and the viewer's interpretation.

Artist & psyche explorer
https://jaen.art
🌍 Exhibited Worldwide/Museums/Saatchi/
in actual Space 🛰
 💎 SR/6529 Memes/Fake Rares/Disney
/cult /audiovisual


Yes, asking whether this is where people in the space are learning to leaning towards

Well, the second one is precisely the point of view of Barthes in the Death of the Author?

a curious toadz. /bookends /details /outofbounds

Interesting, and kind of demonstrates why I asked. My feeling in the NFT space the dominant sentiment was the latter (viewer interpretation - often kept vague and defaults to big names' or curators' or collectors' interpretation)

It’s about the authors intentions. Viewers interpretation assumes there is some universal viewer. Anyone that says they can speak as to general meaning is full of shit.

Art is first everything else is secondary.

What if the whole art is the intent? I'm seeing more and more push towards conceptual and performative art, especially with the abundance of visual beauty more recently. Does it matter what the creator tried to explore explicitly, and what if the social context around the creator changes?

I think Barthes went to far by declaring death but where he makes a point in how most of what we create is just a remix of whats already there.

Intent on the other side is important but in fine arts what matters most is the art itself, the work needs to prove itself on it's own.

I subscribe to "artist intention", sure art can be interpreted by the viewer, but the ground truth to me is the artist's intention. The unavailability or obfuscation of this ground truth is immaterial, as is each individual's interpretation of the surface form.

Once the art leaves your hands it becomes no longer you but something else