-The author should be removed from writings.
-We should not take author's personal views/ attributes into consideration while critiquing/interpreting authors work.
-The story is already there, the author just has to organize it.
-author's beliefs/background should not be part of conversation of writings.
-language, not author, that speaks.
Some writing works as its own monument, unable to be associated with its creator. Other works stand as an expression of the ego of the author. Saying that the writings already exist in the ether is like saying the poetry is already written in the magnets on the fridge. I don't see the necessity of removing my personal views/background from my work and it's interpretation. I enjoy knowing the background of Hunter S. Thompson and how his personality influences his writings and how closely it mirrored his real life. I believe my work can stand on it's own without the viewer's knowledge of my background. This knowledge does not hurt my work though. In fact, I think it helps the viewer get a grander perspective of which circumstances the work was created under.
Would Barthes consider Warhol's work successful without taking his persona into consideration of his work? What about Koons or other "personality" artists?
How would you let a viewer know that you do not want them to consider your personal views in their interpretation of your work?
