On Wednesday we touched upon the subject of authorship, how it is difficult to pinpoint exactly which words are Shakespeare's and which were put there by editors and even actors. I think we also mentioned how the plays have changed over time, with the addition of scenery, women actors, more sophisticated equipment and special effects, all adding to but also fundamentally changing the way audiences perceive the work. This creates a bit of a community, where the author isn't as important as the work itself. This idea has always been interesting to me, as I have always liked to know the background of an author/director to give me context in analyzing their works. But in this sort of community-type art, the backgrounds of the creators are hard to distinguish from one another and eventually melt together. I was wondering what everyone thought about this- is the author's background/perspective important to you when reading/viewing their work, or does the work exist autonomously for you?
I bring this up because it reminded me of two things:
Roland Barthes' piece, "The Death of an Author", which is long and not all that fun to read, but it basically argues that we should not incorporate the intentions of the author or their context/beliefs/etc are important when viewing their works. He says that the writer and the work are separate, and once the work is finished, the author is essentially "dead" and has no further input or relevance to the analysis of their works. I always disagreed with this because I think context and perspective of the creator is very important (not in every case, but most) and I personally like knowing background information like this. The only time I ever fully agreed with Barthes was when JK Rowling made some sort of comment about Dumbledore being gay. For some reason this drove me absolutely bonkers for I always felt that Dumbledore was wonderfully enigmatic and almost asexual in a way, and I never thought any background on him was necessary. And as soon as she said that, I found myself angrily saying that she never made that explicit in the books, she lost her chance, so she has no say in how other people interpret Dumbledore and she should just SHUT THE HELL UP. (JK Rowling makes me mad in ways that I can't describe or even begin to understand).
This whole community art thing reminded me of a website called HitRecord.org (started by actor, Joseph Gordon-Levitt). The whole idea is that one person makes some sort of art work, uploads it to the site, and loses all ownership of that piece. Then anyone else can take that artwork, change it or adapt it or add to it, and then do the same. Short films come about on this website, where one person wrote a script, another filmed it, another added music and another added animation. This creates such interesting artwork that I think would never have the opportunity to come about if we were all so strict on authorship.
Anyway, sorry for the long-windedness and the random and angry Dumbledore rant.
Thoughts on authorship anyone?
The Immortality of Garrick
David Garrick, the eighteenth-century actor, playwright, and theater manager often credited with Shakespeare's 18th-century revival, is here lauded by a group of 17 actors in their favorite Shakespearean characters, as he is carried to his apotheosis
All really interesting comments, Lauren, and I'd love to take them up more in class. I'm re-posting a link that I mentioned before, since I think it relates to some of your broader questions on authorship.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/culturenews/7450874/Shakespeare-18th-Century-work-Double-Falsehood-is-his-lost-play.html
Lauren- first of all, I LOVED your rant about JK Rowling's commentary on Dumbledore. I remember when I first read that news press article in which she reveals that Dumbledore is gay, I was infuriated as I was confused as to her intentions of proclaiming this. She had never hinted at Dumbledore's sexual orientation in the entire series, and she seemed to take away from the power of her work by providing background on Dumbledore who is loved as the asexual, ambiguous figure. I've never read "The Death of an Author", but it sounds extremely interesting as I'd like to see what kind of arguments Barthes makes to support his claim that the literary work and its author are completely separate entities.
ReplyDeleteI would have to disagree, because in terms of interpretation alone, the author's background or context speaks volumes when attempting to interpret ambiguous references in the work. Works are not simply about the plot or the storyline as we discussed - for example, Luhrmann's Romeo & Juliet exemplifies the practice of keeping Shakespeare's text intact (including the themes of betrayal, starstruck love, and dramatic irony), but also allows for a different interpretation in that the context is set in the gang-riddled areas of Verona. The author's intentions or motivations behind writing the work and the period during which it is written can provide clarification about the intended message.
In terms of authorship, I never knew about Joseph Gordon-Levitt's HitRecord! It is definitely an innovative way to encourage authors to collaborate and allow their works to serve as inspiration for a variety of different interpretations. Without the fear of plagiarism and copyright (a rampant concern of modern society), artists are free to explore the bounds of creativity and expand their own horizons by viewing the works of their peers.