I feel like the main reason I never really… GOT "death of the author" is most writers suck at NOT putting their biases in.
Separate art from artist? If I learn the artist had a blatant foot fetish, I won't be able to separate that from all the feet they put in their art 😬
-R
Separate art from artist? If I learn the artist had a blatant foot fetish, I won't be able to separate that from all the feet they put in their art 😬
-R
I've been informed that "death of the author" is not actually the same as "separate art from artist" in which case I'd like to amend my original tweet:
The artist's biases will almost always be visible through their art. Acknowledging and analyzing this is a good thing to do
-R
The artist's biases will almost always be visible through their art. Acknowledging and analyzing this is a good thing to do
-R
And people who tell you you shouldn't explore or acknowledge those biases because "death of the author" are (a) misusing the term and/or (b) reacting defensively assuming you're judging them for appreciating the works of a flawed human being, and (c) these people annoy me 😒 -R
Like, guys. I'm so tired. You're allowed to notice that Lovecraft was racist or that Heinlein didn't understand consent or that <insert director here> is way into feet. You're just noticing stuff. It's fine. Everyone calm down and stop setting fire to my comment section. -R
And one last follow-up before I take my own advice and go to bed – you're also allowed to be UNCOMFORTABLE because of these. "Product of the time" is an explanation for the flaws, not a dismissal of them. You're not WRONG for being skeeved out with the benefit of hindsight. -R
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
