Authorship

 

        Being obsessed with celebrities and knowing the in's and outs of their lives can hinder our interpretation of art and texts. This is because when idolizing someone or something you tend to follow what they do and begin to share the same interests, etc. Celebrities have a huge influence on the society as a whole just because of their status. This can be bad in general when their privilege isn't used for good, however, when we view art, we may not see it for what it is because our interpretation of it has been greatly influenced by an outside source. For example, right now a key part of he beauty standard is to be thin. Many influential celebrities with online platforms are thin and/or have some sort of exercise and dieting routine. Because we see the people we look up to as being thin or having other characteristics that get praised, it makes us (the viewer) want to enhance ourselves to be perceived in that light no matter how unrealistic it may be. 

       Barthes says, "We know that a text is not a line of words releasing a single 'theological' meaning (the 'message'  of the authorGod)  but a multi-dimensional space in which a variety of writings, none of them original, blend and clash." I think that this idea is spot on. Everything that we know as humans is just gathered information. Our knowledge and though process is based off of everything from the outside world and education to media and music, etc. Our ideas only form from the things we know but chances are that thought is unoriginal. 

     When Barthes says "once the Author is removed, the claim to decipher a text becomes quite futile" he's suggesting that people like to first understand the author to better understand their work. I agree that this is helpful to understand why someone created something, however, I find it fun to perceive it before hand. If you don't know much about the artist or author prior to viewing their work, it may seem as though the meaning behind it is limitless. Your interpretation of something can be completely different from the next person and maybe both of those interpretations are nowhere near where the author or artist was going.  

     I think when Barthes says that the reader, viewer, or listener "is the space on which all the quotations that make up a writing are inscribed without any of them being lost." He means that we are the ultimate author. An idea comes to life within the mind of the reader. We author art, film, photography, texts, etc, though our own interpretations, cultures, and belief systems. Our perception of something is our own which then leads to more thoughts and ideas in our minds. The meaning of the text only exists when it is being interpreted and a different interpretation gives the work new meaning. Anything can be interpreted in an unlimited amount of ways. The viewer, reader, or listener may not recognize every little detail but I think that's the point. Achieving a new and/or different perspective may be the end goal in order to keep thoughts flowing. 

    Sherrie Levine can get away with plagiarizing Barthes because Barthes agrees that there is no original thought. She was a conceptual artist who took advantage of interpreting artwork and creating copies and then labeled them as her own. Her way of going about this doesn't sit right with me because she was literally copying word for word which doesn't use very much though or interpretation of her own. On the contrary, she was successful in doing so.

    I'm not sure if Levine changed the meaning of the original text. Levine took appropriation to a new level with her work by copying things with little to no alteration. If someone came along and they had never heard of Roland Barthes, they may be led to believe that the death of the author was Levin's idea. 

    I think Levine got away with so much plagiarism because nothing is inherently singular or unique. Levine basically echoes Barthes ideas discussed in The Death of The Author.