Reading and understanding this text was a bit of a chore, but after a few times the message of what Barthes was trying to communicate started to sink in. Texts like this will have to be read in order to collect academic research for the upcoming essay and dissertations, so I may as well get used to it now (he could work on shortening his sentences though).
My definition of an author before we read the text:
"Someone who writes something with thought/ideas behind it. They own it as they created it".
What we concluded from the text:
Barthes is trying to explain that if the author is not present, the passion, ideas and feeling goes out of the work. The author will always have a link between themselves and their writing, like a "father to a son". He believes that the reader is as important as the writer themselves, as the reader you can interpret that writing in any way you want. He states that the reader can never truly know what the author is trying to say; you can only speculate and the work should be free to interpretation. Writing is there to be read and to be decided on, whether it is simply figuring it out or having an opinion on it. He also believes modern writing is an accumulation of that culturally already exists; we can only create new writing and ideas based on what we have learned before, as you can only ever bounce off what is already known. It is impossible to write something completely original and that why the 'death of the author' has arisen.
This relates to us, as illustrators, because if our work has nothing to say then it simply isn't illustration. Our authorship over our work is the most important thing we have. If Barthes believes that if writing without passion, ideas and feeling doesn't deserve to have been created by an "author", then imagery without passion, ideas and feeling doesn't deserve to be created by an "illustrator". We need to be able to communicate with our work and if we can't, then we have fallen at the first hurdle and can never truly be illustrators (owch). We also do pull together pre existing ideas and inspiration to create something new, as he believes modern writers do; we comment on articles, create visual worlds for stories and give a new way of looking at things we see every day.
I don't know if I agree with everything Barthes says; I think he makes many good points, but original ideas can still be created and modern writers still completely have the right to be classed as authors. If writers from the middle ages can be authors then why can't we now; surely they were only writing about what they already know, they were just the first to do so? And if an illustrator creates a completely unheard and unseen world, or way of working, surely that is original? Of course its harder to come up with something truly original, as you are subconsciously influenced by everything you see and do, but definitely not impossible. It's like when your grandma doesn't like MTV because she grew up with the radio. I think he might be a bit stuffed up.
Linking pieces of the text to the theme of 'Culture':
"Text is not a line of words releasing a single theological meaning but a multi-dimensional space in which a variety of writings, none of them original, blend and clash. The text is a tissue of quotations drawn from the innumerable centres of culture".
"The image of literature to be found in ordinary culture is tyrannically centred on the author, his person, his tastes, his life, his passions".
"In ethnographic societies the responsibility for a narrative is never assumed by a person but by a mediator, shaman or relator whose 'performance' - the mastery of the narrative code - may possibly be admired but never his 'genius'."
Other points to consider:
Hierarchy in culture focuses on the most well-known and respected members of that society; so are people considered 'authors' just because they are better known? For example, J.K. Rowling is an author, and if I write a little unpublished story I am not? It depends on what you believe in - J.K. Rowling definitely deserves to be called an author more than myself (it is her profession) but that doesn't mean that I'm not, if someone reads my little story and is somehow affected by it. We both have equal ownership over our writings, just hers are better known.
This hurts my brain!
No comments:
Post a Comment