I forgot to say this in the video but this is Foucault and THIS ENDS THE ART AND AUTHOR’S UNIT. After Spring Break we can do the final unit: ART AND AUDIENCES!
Special guest star here — your class mate Mackenzie Winter! If yo want to guest star for something let me know!
There is a lot of Harry Potter in here!
I love Harry Potter, this was an interesting conversation!
ReplyDeleteThis was quite interesting even though I am not a fan of Harry Potter, but this intrigued me a lot
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSo you think the only books anyone should read should be from living authors — no one should be able to read the Bible, or Plato, or Shakespeare? If an author publishes books and then dies how should we go about collecting the copies of the books that are owned by people?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI got my ideas all mixed up but yes, I think we should be able to read every single work of literature no matter is the author is dead or alive. What I was trying to say is it fair for someone else to release their works of literature without their consent due to their passing. Because for example if the author wrote something to say a book or a poem, and it presumes done, is it right to still release it regardless if the artist didn't approve of its release or is if fair because it's his work of art and it was presumably done and made to be published.
ReplyDeleteSorry for my misunderstanding I looked back at my earlier comment and it wasn't what I was trying to say.
Ah this is a good point — that might be worth writing about actually. This happens with movies all the time where the director wants to do something and the studio disagrees and they change the movie or release it before the director was really finished with it — this happened with Blade Runner most famously
DeleteAbout religion: That’s so true about Judaism, they only “Stan” the Torah, and the New Testament doesn’t have any standing in Judaism. It’s very interesting how similar yet different the religions/bibles are.
ReplyDeleteAlso i love Harry Potter. This was so interesting.
Michelle Adlin
To quote Tarkovsky again: A book read by a thousand different people is a thousand different books. This brings into question the limits of subjective and objective reality, including the objectivity of an author, who is obviously a subjective person with subjective ideas and thoughts and preferences and politics. By having these exterior pieces of context retrospectively influence the work of art, the experience will change regarding that art, hopefully for better but sometimes for worse. CHINATOWN (1974) by Roman Polanski- side note: it's complicated too that the director is the owner of a film, as there are dozens to thousands of other people also authoring the film at all stages, from the writers to the producers to the audience members and film critics at test screenings- is one of my favorite films (top 50). When I first saw it, I had no qualms about this, but upon learning later in life that Polanski raped a minor... I had a "wait what?" moment- how could someone procure a great work of art only to turn out to be a rapist later in life? Does the later act of the artist fully disqualify the work of art? It's tricky because of course no type of person should feel entitled to get away with damn despicable acts, nor should they continue to be richer/affluent...
ReplyDeleteI struggle so much with this I wrote a BOOK on it. Brooks would tell us to ignore the author and just talk about the work. Fundamentally I think people who argue against enjoying art by terrible people are right, but the problem is I am going to go ahead an enjoy it anyway, which I think makes me a bad person?
Delete