Death of the Artist? I think not!

As a whole the writings of Samaras, Warhol, and Barthes speak greatly toward one topic that stands strongly in conjunction with each author’s own points and discussions. This topic is that of the artist, whether that of visual arts or literary arts, and how this artist is defined in their decisions and process. They all speak loudly on the area of justification of actions, as well as that of extreme critique and observation. Both the artist and the author regularly place themselves into positions of critique quite openly through the creation of artwork, even if they do not intend to do so. They create bodies of work that are viewed by public masses that then interpret the piece and impose these new ideas and inferences upon the artists. It becomes a sort of struggle between the artist and viewer, one in which the artist’s intention may be very different than the messages that the viewers place between the artist’s lips. It is this area which the three particular authors and/or artists address.

Very much like the position seen widely throughout today’s media between celebrities and the paparazzi, the artist also places themselves into a vulnerable position of which is always being observed and discussed. A piece of art can often place an artist lying belly up with the audience creating its own explanations and then assigning these ideas to the artists themselves. This idea is one that Andy Warhol speaks on in his writing of “Warhol in his own Words”. Warhol shows the audience that much of his work is created for a very different reason than most give it credit for. Going even to the length suggesting that his work is created because of his draw to the boring Warhol shows his lack of conceptual genius behind his work and then tries to define this statement for the viewer. Andy Warhol takes a very drastic approach to showing the reader that he is not the genius some make him out to be, but rather creates a very ordinary and monotone aura around his life and work. With these ideas Warhol as an artist tries to defend his own standing with his art and clarify these feelings with the general public and readers. He attempts to break the mold that society has created for him and tries to shed light on the character of his true personality.

In a very similar manner Lucas Samaras creates an interview to show his very distinct views on his creative process. In a self-interview entitled “Another Autointerview”, Samara creates a unique and uncomfortable feeling for the readers, but also one of great openness and vulnerability. The style of interview takes out the question of honesty and delves deeper into what Samaras feels and thinks. Although confusing at times, Lucas Samaras incorporates a sense of sarcastic humor, but also always circles back to the reason for the interview itself. This reason and purpose is that of his intent behind and relationship to art. It seems that this idea of justification is clearly present in both of the first articles, but in “Death of the Author” this idea is challenged and overturned. It is this idea of divergence that became the most potent and powerful when combining the writings found in these three readings.

Even though the artist and the author often stand apart from one and other, these writings bring up questions about their relationship, along with the relationship between each as individuals and the viewers of their creations. In “Death of the Author” Roland Barthes shows how many writings are recently striving to lose the presence of the creator or author and shift the power over to the reader. Well this idea is something that Warhol and Samaras do not seem to agree with, and using their different outreaches to the public, contradict greatly through their actions. This brings up a great point however. The idea of whether there is much that an artist can do once they have created a piece and placed in into the gaze of the masses to solidify their message and intent? Once a piece is turned over to the hands of the viewer, different opinions are created and because these opinions are generated by the artwork, they are often assigned to its creator. This thought stands closely to that of the author’s removal of presence which places a large deal of power into the hands of the viewer. With this transfer of power, the question then becomes about whether this transfer of power is a negative action in anyway? Should an artist or author always maintain the sense of control or is art about the transfer between the artist, the art, and viewer? It is this interaction that creates an idea of personal relationship between the viewer and a work of art, a relationship that seems to be ever present in most successful and longstanding pieces of visual and literary art.