Does art belong to the audience or creator?

[Chroma]

Recently, I was in a discussion with a friend of mine as to whether or not the author of a work has the final say in what their work means. They told me the name of the idea that I personally stand behind: "Death of the Author". The idea is defined by TV Tropes as "a concept from mid-20th Century literary criticism; it holds that an author's intentions and biographical facts (the author's politics, religion, etc) should hold no weight in determining an interpretation of their writing."

Personally, I agree with this. I don't believe that we have to see any given piece of art in only one way, no matter what the creator intended that way to be. Now, their interpretation can be taken into consideration, but ultimately the way we perceive art varies from person to person.

I'm interested in hearing other opinions though, since, after all, the idea itself is all about different perspectives. One thing I want to make clear though, is that Death of the Author does NOT mean that an audience can disregard narrative canon. The idea is about interpretation of themes, not about established lore in that world.

[IdiotWithPencil]

to me art is a 2 way street, I create something with an idea in mind but the audience are the ones who give that idea meaning.

I also follow the death of the author philosophy ;D

[joe_galindez]

I have trouble separating the art from the artist, since I know how autobiographical my own stories are.

That said, the author's intentions don't matter as much as the actual work that was accomplished. And how people receive that work can matter more than the author's intentions ever did.

[LCT_m_a_d]

It's beyond ownership in my opinion. Kinda like a bond. I go as far as to say, for me it's not art if it either party can own it. Its art when neither party can own it but it's somehow shared beyond any tangible means.

[XzynderVexymous]

The audience sure do have their influences, but the author always gets the last say. In everything. He’s the creator, therefore, he owns it.

[joe_galindez]

He’s the creator, therefore, he owns it.

This edition: More gungans!

[dawgofdawgness]

I guess if the artist created art that was made for the audience, then yes it's up to the audience to comprehend the meaning behind it.
But if they made a personal piece (like of their family or their personal life) then it might not work out if the meaning was left for the audience to try and figure out.

Like if it was a painting of a dog that the author had in their childhood, people might try to dig out some deep meaning behind it, when in reality it's just artwork dedicated to a pet.
Or the audience might try and convince others that the painting has some controversial meaning behind it, and that's when things get messy.

[Ghostie]

Art belongs to the creator. The creator made it - it's theirs, it belongs to them, and an audience they're creating it to share with can be along for the ride or freely leave to find something else closer to their tastes. The philosophy that art a creator makes belongs to the audience, is where people demanding a creator skew their story for a personal viewpoint the audience has, comes from. "You make this thing, therefore you owe it to US to do as we say because we follow it." No. You're free to move on and seek other things if the way I make it doesn't appeal to you in the end. It's as simple as that. A creator shouldn't have to be held hostage to butcher a story or plot because of that philosophy - and while I agree that there are people who DON'T do that, that's where that root group of people comes from.

I even find the phrase detestable. "Death of the Author." To me, all that says is that people are easily offended and can't handle that a creator may have a political opinion, religious belief or statement, or some other message they'd happen to slip in once in a while. Which, if they're a good writer to begin with, wouldn't actually in any way hinder the story or plot, it'd just... appear or be brought up, oh noes. 9_9

Creators are people - creativity is freedom. I say if you're a creator, SAY AND DO WHATEVER YOU WANT. ITS YOURS. People can either be there, or move on, because I find telling a creator what they can or can't say a form of censorship, which /I/ don't agree with.

[feardeer]

I think it's great for the audience to have their own interpretations, as long as they own the fact that it is only an opinion. The author's intent is the truth of the work, but they should also welcome speculation and interpretations from their audience because it's the only way to know what impact your work is having. It's no fun when authors make a point to correct their fans' harmless theories.

I was actually always annoyed in Literature, Writing, and Art classes where creative works were analyzed to death. Like, maybe this story isn't secretly about some high-flown politics, and maybe not every character and prop is a metaphor for something else, maybe it's really just a story about a kid and a dog and having fun.

[Chroma]

The philosophy that art a creator makes belongs to the audience, is where people demanding a creator skew their story for a personal viewpoint the audience has, comes from. "You make this thing, therefore you owe it to US to do as we say because we follow it." No. You're free to move on and seek other things if the way I make it doesn't appeal to you in the end. It's as simple as that. A creator shouldn't have to be held hostage to butcher a story or plot because of that philosophy - and while I agree that there are people who DON'T do that, that's where that root group of people comes from.

As I said earlier, this philosophy isn't about denying an author's canonical choices. It's the interpretation of the thematic elements of the story. This philosophy also isn't denying that an author can do what they want with their story. It is their fundamental right to do with it what they will. I believe you're misunderstanding what my explanation of the philosophy.

[DiegoPalacios]

In my opinion, in terms of who makes the choices about how the story will go, the creator is the one who has the last word. (Except if it is interactive and works with voting about how the plot will go on.

Readers can make their own interpretations, some can be interesting and even insightfull. But it can be negative if they deliberate ignore what is cannon and try to force their own views of how the story should be/should mean.

Here is a description from tvtropes of fans who take death of the author too far. you can find it in tvtropes.org. If you search for fan dumb you will find it. The page call those readers/fans "anarchists"
The opposite of the Theocrat (see below), and often veering into Hate Dumb territory as well, these are fans who, above all else, prefer only the fanon explanations, or, even better, their own explanations of canon events and characters. Often found twisting a character's personality into a Draco in Leather Pants/Ron the Death Eater and saying that those should be the true characters, heaping scorn on the canon pairing and propagating Die for Our Ship, taking Word of Dante over Word of God and declaring the latter as a result of bad writing, erasing any and all clarifications of Plot Holes to fit their own personal canons, the list goes on and on. Ironically / hypocritically, while this type of fan will stubbornly challenge and reject anything the author says, they'll usually react with anger and offence if anyone dares question their preferred interpretation. When dealing with this kind of Fan, it may be helpful to construct an analogy of a student taking an exam who insists on only giving answers that she herself and/or her classmates came up with, even when they contradict answers the teacher himself has provided, and she even argues with the teacher after getting her "incorrect" paper back. Then, ask the Anarchist "Now, considering that this is in fact [insert creator's name]'s story and not your story, how are you any different from this bizarre student?"

[youcannotread]

One thing I want to make clear though,

I love it!

I think most of me agrees with Death of the Author because can't the author's perception change too? This, to me, means that their intentions could be just as arbitrary as the audience's because they felt like interpreting it differently than what was originally intended. That might be twisted logic, but I think it just means opinions are what's most important in art.

But @XzynderVexymous and @Plague, part of me agrees with you too, that it belongs to them and their intentions are just as valuable as the piece itself. I think that way because the author's intentions are the "idea" that is represented. So other people coming up with their own interpretations of themes ( e.g. putting their social background in and ignoring the author's) could, potentially, take away from the original "idea", itself. Just like in @DiegoPalacios 's example - or even in less extreme cases. Maybe something subtle is lost just because someone else didn't want it there.

Ultimately, I think Death of The Author is what will hold strong, in a practical sense. No way are we getting everyone to agree on art xD

@feardear, I remember thinking the same stuff! "What if this isn't secretly about uncovering a conspiracy theory and the author just liked cupcakes?"

[Chroma]

I'm really loving everyone's insights so far! Very interesting points have been made, quite a few of which I've never even considered before. Even if this thread doesn't continue after this point, I consider it a success! Some really cool perspectives have been shared, a good amount really made me think.

[Rhombik]

Art belongs to the author. The interpretation belongs to anybody.

[joe_galindez]

The interpretation can take on a life of its own though.

[Doubtcent]

I believe that it can go either way depending on the motivations of the artist.
I personally have two projects going, one that I make for me, and one that I make for the benefit of everyone else.

For the first project, I'm making a longform comic that is a set up for telling 100 different stories. This is all a challenge for myself to get better, so I don't worry too much about ratings or engagement. In fact, I'm not expecting all that much simply because it's so experimental and not everyone is going to like it. And that's fine with me. I'm making it FOR me.

The second project however is a restart of an advice comic. This comic is not really for me, per se, but for other creators who want answers for their questions. So I say, it's definitely something that belongs to the audience, not so much me.

[indagold]

Just because art can be interpreted anyway as possible doesn't mean the audience is always right. Work always belongs to the creator no matter what. Only time I can see the audience having actual control is its a collaboration effort, the creator really wants the audience to fill in the blanks and think for a story themselves, the original story was poorly made and needs to be rewritten or simply its open to public domain.

I hate nowadays people try to use "death of the author" to force dumb headcanons because they're upset they can't get their shitty ships to be canon or want ham fist their political/philosophical/religious ideology into someone else's story because they're too damn lazy to write original content or want their technicolor OC to be totes real and so much other fandom buffoonery.

[Mari]

Creator always has the last say on what their art means.

I.E Back when homestuck was at it's peak I drew a random pick of a girl with white hair. It got a bunch of people reblogging it saying it was fanart of Rose, when it was not. The audience certainly wasn't right there, and I had every right to contest with "Actually this was just some random hoe".

[punkarsenic]

whether or not the author of a work has the final say in what their work means.

i feel like thats different to the question of 'belonging,' but its a bloody interesting one. and, well, im not sure?

While literature is all about reading things into the writing and creating your own analysis and interpretations, there are also things a story is 'about.' things the writer set out the achieve. of mice and men is about the dust bowl migration, for sure. its not about the vietnam war, for sure, because that hadnt happened yet - but maybe people could apply relevance to the vietnam war.

theres some really horrible examples of stories being taken out of their creators hands, such as lolita - lolita is romanticised so much and the writer hated it, because the story was supposed to be a criticism of pedophilia. but due to the decisions of the publisher, and the people that got hold of the book, it was taken out of context - its hard to say the creator doesnt have last say when its possible to take their work so massively out of context.

so i guess... as a creator, i want to be able to shut someone down if their interpretation is like that. but otherwise, i really love the way that an audience can take a story 5000 different ways - i have a poem about a woman coming back from the dead, from the point of view of her girlfriend. when i read it, people come up to me and tell me about their interpretations - one man believed the woman never actually died, but came close, another believed the poem was about anorexia. theyre both things i never intended to communicate, but i can see how they reached their interpretation and think its really interesting.

[joe_galindez]

Different interpretations . . . I can't say something as simple as "cat" without each of us imagining an entirely different cat. Our experiences color our perceptions that much. So how can we tell a story without individual readers understanding it according to their own private vocabulary?