A witty title about DEATH, by Lauren

The theme of this week’s readings revolved around the question of, “Who am I and what is my purpose in creating?” This is a good question to ask oneself, certainly. Purposeless people are terribly dull. But I don’t know if everyone else needs to also know the answer to that question.

In the two interviews we read, I found some statements by Warhol and Samaras to be profound. Other statements were absolutely inane. And in the end, I did not know either of them any better than I had previously. Knowing oneself is a valuable thing, but thinking everyone else wants to, or should, know you, or that you can get to know a person through something like an interview or clever quotations, is mistake.

On the subject of the death of the author/artist, no matter what a writer or artist’s intentions are it is impossible to shut out the filter of personal experiences and philosophies when creating. The self will always be an influence and always come across in the work somehow. But I do not find it essential to know about the person behind a work to have an opinion about the content and quality of that work. Art needs to work on two levels: there is a relationship between the artist and the work, and the relationship between the work and its audience. Those two relationships do not need to be parallel. The relationship of the artist to their work doesn’t need to be laid bare to an audience or taken into consideration by critics when judging the meaning or value of a work. I’d go so far as to say what makes an artist good is to transcend the need for explanation and background. The work should always speak for itself. Besides, literary and artistic criticism is by its nature absurd, no?