Roland Barthes (1915 – 1980) French literary theorist, philosopher, linguist, critic, and semiotician.
I had been struggling with the concept of whether an artist’s intentions should be considered as part of any critical review of his work. I instinctively felt that the artist’s views and intentions should, where available, be considered as they could add to the information available which would produce a more rounded analysis of his work and its meaning.
My tutor asked me to consider if this might be because I am an artist and that I might be interested in matters other than purely visual analysis and theory-based critique. He suggested that I read Roland Barthes The Death of the Author and Foucault’s What is an author? to help me think things through.
What does Barthes mean?
I managed to get a pdf version of Barthes essay on-line, translated by Richard Howard. I didn’t find it easy read. My initial understanding of his main points is:
Quoting a passage from a Balzac (1799 – 1850) novel Barthes questions the provenance of a passage which tells of a women’s feeling – are they those of the author (who is a man) or some other source? He argues that as the sources could be many it is useless guessing and anyway irrelevant as literature is, or should be, ‘where all identity is lost’ and the ‘author enters his own death.’
Barthes recognised that authorship is often held as important, particularly by critics. But he says that some authors, he cites Mallarme (1842 – 1898), aim to supress their own voice in their work. He asserts that this absence of authorial voice is the mark of a modern writer.
Some other relevant quotes:
‘the unity of a text is not in its origin, it is in its destination.’
‘the birth of the reader must be ransomed by the death of the Author.’
Reflection
This is an extreme, if not provocative view. It reminds me of social constructivism where there is no reality other than that which is socially constructed. It also bears comparison to Clement Greenberg’s ideas of a modernist painting which should not aim to portray ideas but just be true to its own nature and materiality.
I am not sure whether Barthes is saying that the author has died or whether he should be killed off for the sake of getting to the true meaning of a text. The latter probably.
I understand the idea that the character or characteristics, or indeed intent, of the author might come through the work, or not, but that the work should be judged on its merit alone. Richard Wagner has been criticised for being anti-Semitic but this is put aside by those admiring his work.
I read a biography of Picasso by Patrick O’Brian. Now by other accounts I have read Picasso was a challenging character, and this is not glossed over in O’Brian’s work. What also comes across is a dismissive, misogynistic even, tone when describing the various women in Picasso’s life. I wasn’t sure whether the attributions and motivations ascribed to them were an attempt at illuminating Picasso’s views, or the authors own. A bit like Barthes comments on Balzac.
I looked up the author and although he did have a successful and popular literary career, after his death his veracity and personality were called into question, which lead me to think that perhaps the views were influenced by his beliefs. But had he had a sparkling feminist background would I, should I, have had revised my view of the writing? Probably I would have ascribed the views as Picasso’s own rather than the author’s. But I am then judging the motivation behind the ‘truth’ of the writing rather than its elegance. But perhaps using a biography as an example is not a good one, as accuracy is surely as important as artistic merit.
Not feeling much further forward, and not entirely convinced of Barthes’ views I decided to look up critiques of Barthes essay and other views on artists’ intent.
Michael Foucault What is an Author (1969)
In this lecture Foucault explores ‘the singular relationship that holds between an author and text.’ And the way that ‘a text … points to the figure [the author] who is outside and precedes it.’ He considers first that modern writing has ‘freed itself from the necessity of expression; it only refers to itself … ‘. It relies not on its content (that which is signified) but on the signifier.
Secondly he thinks about the relationship ‘between writing and death.’ This death is ‘the total effacement of the individual characteristics of the writer.’ He too, talks of ‘the death of the author.’ Interestingly, he also cites Mallarme as an exemplar.
Foucault sets out some of the difficulties when stating an author’s name and the associations that go with it. Ultimately he imagines (an ideal) culture where issues around authorship are irrelevant.
Other views
Lidija Hass, writing in the Telegraph (12 November 2015), writes of the ‘zeal’ with which Barthes put forward his negative view of authors who seek to ‘express themselves’ through their work. Her understanding is that he is saying that only with the ‘death’ or absence of the author can a reader be free to read into the text anything they want.
She goes on to say that 10 years after Barthes wrote the essay he rowed back a little from this view, even planning himself to be ‘the subject who makes something, rather than the one who only reads and analyses texts.’
Ana Finel Honigman, writing in the Guardian (26 January 2007) asks questions about artistic intent and whether the artist can be wrong ‘or even clueless’ about what their work says. Her view is that there is room for multiple meanings, even if they do not accord with the artist’s own.
I was taken with her final analogy about a scientist who sets out to solve one problem, only for something else entirely to be discovered by accident. An artist may intend a meaning, but the discovery of another meaning is also perfectly valid and may even be more useful.
Perhaps then not so much the death of the author but a more equal partnership with, and respect for the views of, the reader
Understanding Visual Culture 