Project 15 Author? what Author?

Project 15 Author? what Author?

Section 1   Michel Foucault      What is an author   pps 949-953

At the start of this essay Foucault is being provocative taking a given and turning it into a problem at 1st glance his question (what is an author) seems pointless as we have become accustomed  to the way we think about authors and authorship.

Foucault reminds us that we regard the concept of authorship as "solid and fundamental" the concept has not always existed. It "came to being at a particular moment in history and it could pass out of being in the future".

He also seems to take up or have a  habit of thinking about authors as individuals, heroic figures who can transcend or step outside history.  Why should we think this way, why not consider the notion that authors are products of our time?  According to Foucault, Barthes had encouraged other critics to realise that they could "do without (the authors) and study work itself   (Question  how can you if you have nothing to go on in the 1st place)?

Foucault then turns his attention to a rival (Derrida though he does not mention him by name) and claims that although Derrida like Barthes presents his views as radical they are quite conventional.  Foucault suggests that Derrida recognises the author, but instead reassigns the author privileges and power to writing or language itself. Why does he bother to do this because he enjoys a fight and does not want his readers to assume that being an author is a dead issue a problem that Barthes and Derrida have already solved  He wishes to show that despite all their inflated language neither Barthes or Derrida has broken away from the question or the author----much less solved it.  Foucault then asks us to think about the ways in which the name functions in our society - names of authors often serve a classificatory function.  For example if you were to go to a bookshop or library and were looking for a certain book you would look for the authors name not the title, what it is about, what year was it  written or published.  You would look for the author.  Why do we assume that it is natural to look this way? What if we were to discover that it had not been written by this person would we be disappointed, after all the novel etc would not change.  Foucault goes on to introduce his concept of the "author function" this is not a person and not confused with the author or the writer it is more like a set of beliefs or assumptions that govern the production, circulation, classification and reading of the text.


Section 2    Roland Barthes  essay  The death of the author  pps 142-148

Barthes opens with a quote from Balzac's novel Sarrasine where the author offers a description of a "castrato" disguised as a woman (p.142)   "this is a woman herself, with her sudden fears, her irrational whims, her instinctive worries, her impetuous boldness, her fussing and her delicious sensibility" (p142)  One of the most widely-known features of intertextuality is Barthes claim that of the death of the author.  He combines psychoanalytical and linguistic theories to argue that the orgins of the text is not a unified authorial consciousness but a plurality of other words utterances and other tests.

Barthes suggests that the meaning of the authors words does not originate from the authors own unique consciousness but from the place of words within linguistic and cultural systems.  The author has the role as a compiler or arranger of pre-existent possibilities within the language system.  Each word sentence, paragraph etc.that the author produces takes its origins from the language system out of which it has been produced.  This view of language expressed by Barthes is what theorists termed inter textual (to Barthes this means that nothing exists outside the text) he destroys the idea that meanings come from and is the property of the individual author.  This synthesises the view that by saying that " the modern sciptor, when they write is always already in the process of reading and re-writing  meaning comes not from the author but the language viewed.  The nature of writing turns both the traditional author and critic in to readers.

Bathes concludes `The Death of the Author` with the following --- a text is made from multiple writings taken from many cultures and entering into mutual relations of dialogue, parody, contention but there is one place where this is focused, that of the reader not as hitherto said the author.  The reader is the space on which all the quotes that make up the writing are inscribed without any being lost a text lies not in its origins (writer) but in its reader so the birth of the reader is the death of the author.

Question  In their view does this mean in the context of art the painter is not the author but the viewer is?  So when we study a painting we interpreted it as our authorship?

Michel Foucault's

At the start of this essay Foucault is being provocative taking a given and turning it into a problem at 1st glance his question (What is an Author?) seems pointless as we are accustomed we have  become to thinking about authors and authorship.  In this section Foucault reminds us that we regard the concept of authorship as "solid and fundamental" the concept has not always existed.  It "came into being at a particulure moment in history and could pass out of being in  the furture.

Foucault also seems to take up our habit of thinking about authors as individuals heroic figures who can transcend or step outside history.  Why should we think this way,  why not consider the  notion that authors are product of their times?

According to Foucault, Barthes has encourged other critics to realize that they could "do without (the authors) and study the work itself.)  Question  how can you if you have nothing to go on in the 1st place?

Foucault then turns his attention to a rival (Derrida though he does not mnetion him by name) and cliams that although Derrida like (Barthes) presents his views as radical they are quite conventional.  Foucault suggest that Derrida reconnises the author, but instead reassigns the authors privileges and power to writting or lauguage itself.  Why does he bother to do this, because he enjoys a fight and does not want his readers to assume that being an author is a dead issue a problem that Barthes and Derrida have already solved.

He wishes to show that dispite all their inflated language neither Barthes or Derrida has broken away from the question of the author --- much less solved it.

Foucault then ask us to think about the ways in which the authors names functions in our society - names of authors often  serve as a classifactory function. i.e.  if you go to a book shop or libuary and are looking for a certain book you would look for the authors name not the name of the book or want it is about (accept for looking under the heading of study, general reading or reference etc) or what year it was published or writtn.  Why do we assume that it is natural to look this way,  what if we were to discover that it had not been written by this person, would we be dissapointed after all the novel etc. would not change.  Foucault goes on to introduce his concept of the authors function  this is not a person and not confused with the author or writer it is more like a set of beliefs or assumptions that goven the production circulation, classification and reading of the text.

I think the art work of both Sherrie Levine and Cindy Sherman is explained in the articles by Foucault and Barthes.  Their work is a mixture of signs which can be liked or dislikes by the viewer (as with other artwork in depends on the person viewing the subject) One example of this is Sherrie Levine's re-photograph  of Walker Evans 1936 photos of a family of sharecroppers in the depression each one using slightly diffrent images so the question one askes is the author Walker or Lervine. At first glance I would say Walker as he did the the orginal then Levine alters the look and gives it a diffrent intrepretation thus giving a diffrent prespective so she could be the author of her photograph?

Cindy Sherman on the other hand does not directly make reference to the orginal work of others.  The author became the actress taking on the role.  Sherman allows the reader to resonate they own meaning from the image.

The cultural move following the 2 articles with the birth of the reader at the expense of the author makes Benjamins concept of the aura in artwork as not so relevant.