Week 8 Authorship
Week 8 Authorship
As humans, we enjoy learning about what is going on in other people's lives. We achieve this through social media, biographical films, and bios. Reality television is another option. We do this to gain a better understanding of who that person is. For example, we study about an artist's history in order to gain a better grasp of the time period in which they were born so that we may better understand their work. The same is true for musicians, sportsmen, and a variety of other professions. If we want to understand more about a musician, we can look into whether or not they have taken any classes to learn to sing or play an instrument.
This, I believe, relates into the idea that nothing is original anymore. "The writer can only imitate a gesture that is always anterior, never original," the article says. This seems to happen in a lot of situations in life. We learn several approaches and ways to create great works of art, especially in art. By combining all of the different techniques and giving them our own spin. Nothing is truly unique. We must make something out of what is available to us. As a person who is both an artist and a sportsperson, I have witnessed this in both the art and sports worlds.
"is the space on which all of the quotations that make up a writing are inscribed without any of them becoming lost." I feel that the purpose of the writing and material is for the reader to try to comprehend it. Every word or line of text will be lost on the reader. The author cannot assist the reader in understanding; the reader must do so on their own. The same may be said for art. The viewer will not grasp every element of a painting, for example, but it is up to them to figure out what the artwork means and why the artist produced it.That, in my opinion, is what makes it enjoyable. Having to find out what an artwork's meaning is and being able to talk about it with others. That is what distinguishes many works of art. It makes you consider what it is. You may be required to learn about and about the creators as a result of this. As humans, we already enjoy doing so. So, if we're interested in art, we'll strive to decipher the meaning.
Sherrie Levine basically expressed exactly what Berthes discusses in the article in her statement. She tweaks a few of his words to make it her own and to match what she's talking about. Levine is paraphrasing Berthe's remark that "nothing is original." She accomplishes this by paraphrasing what he said and changing a few phrases. Because her comment isn't original, it connects to what he stated. Is this to say that he is correct?
Comments
Post a Comment