Meaning? It’s in The Eye of the Reader/Observer, Not the Artist/Author

Introduction: The Subjective Nature of Making Meaning

Making meaning in art and literature does not rest on deciphering the artist’s intent but on interpreting the work through the viewer’s lens. Jacques Derrida’s philosophy sheds light on this notion, challenging the traditional view that meaning lies solely in the creator’s intent. Instead, Derrida argues

that once the work leaves the artist’s hand, it belongs to the audience for interpretation. This shift in perspective calls into question the validity of authorial intent and opens up art and literature to the infinite variety of human experience. By examining the viewer’s role in meaning-making, we gain a richer, more personal engagement with creative works, one that prioritizes individual perspective over assumed intent.

Art and the Death of the Author

Roland Barthes famously declared “the death of the author,” a concept that posits art and literature should exist independent of their creators’ intentions (Barthes, 1977). He argued that readers and viewers do not need to unlock a hidden message crafted by the author or artist to find value. Instead, Barthes proposed that texts hold inherent power, allowing readers to make meaning as they bring their unique experiences to interpretation. Similarly, in visual art, the observer completes the work by attributing meaning that might differ from the artist’s purpose. This theory aligns with Derrida’s belief that artistic works gain full life only through the audience’s response (Derrida, 1982).

Making Meaning in Photography

Visual arts, like photography, further illustrate the disconnect between intent and interpretation. Photographers capture moments, often imbuing them with personal meaning. Yet, when displayed, each viewer interprets the photograph through their personal lens. In On Photography, Susan Sontag (1977) notes that photographs invite viewers into the scene, stirring subjective associations that frequently diverge from the photographer’s intent. This phenomenon illustrates the broader principle that observers engage with art in ways the creator may never anticipate.

Consider the work of Ansel Adams, whose landscapes often evoke emotions and interpretations beyond his initial purpose of documenting natural beauty (Alinder, 1996). One viewer might interpret Adams’ images as reflections on environmental conservation, while another might see them as spiritual invocations. Adams himself acknowledged that each viewer would “see” his photographs differently, highlighting the limitations of artist intent and the importance of individual interpretation in making meaning from art.

Literary Criticism and Reader-Generated Meaning

In literature, Derrida’s theory that the text “escapes” the author upon publication underscores the interpretive freedom of the reader (Derrida, 1982). To attribute singular meaning to a text undermines the active engagement that a diverse audience brings to it. English teachers, however, frequently emphasize uncovering authorial intent as the pathway to understanding a work. Yet, literary critic Stanley Fish argues that meaning depends on the

reader’s interpretive community—the cultural, social, and historical context they bring to the work (Fish, 1980). This fluid and subjective engagement reinforces the idea that literature, like visual art, should not be confined by a creator’s intent.

For example, readers of Herman Melville’s Moby-Dick find divergent meanings based on their experiences. To some, the novel critiques capitalism and imperialism; to others, it explores existential dread. Melville himself expressed frustration that readers would likely misinterpret his work (Delbanco, 2005). This illustrates the impossibility of securing a single, unchanging interpretation, further supporting the importance of reader autonomy in making meaning.

Visual Art: The Viewer as the Final Interpreter

The theory of making meaning resonates in visual art, where artists communicate through images rather than explicit words. The viewer’s interpretation becomes essential as they bring their unique perspectives to the work. For example, Pablo Picasso’s Guernica has inspired interpretations that extend beyond his opposition to fascism. While Picasso created the piece as a protest, it has also been seen as a universal statement on human suffering, war, and resilience (Chipp, 1968). The painting’s impact continues to evolve as new generations view it, proving that the artist’s intent becomes secondary to the viewer’s interpretive role.

Moreover, abstract art demands that viewers invest more in creating meaning, as abstract forms often lack clear narrative or intent. Jackson Pollock, a pioneer of abstract expressionism, allowed viewers to experience his work without imposing a specific message. In Pollock’s famous drip paintings, each viewer’s interpretation varies widely, illustrating how art becomes meaningful through personal engagement, not through the artist’s original motivation (Naifeh & Smith, 1991).

Conclusion: Making Meaning as a Shared Experience

The meaning of a work of art or literature emerges not from the artist’s intent but from the interaction between the work and the observer. As Barthes, Derrida, and others argue, a creative piece acquires its full significance through this dynamic. Authorial intent may guide the artist, but the viewer ultimately completes the interpretive process. By freeing ourselves from the quest for a definitive meaning, we embrace a richer, more democratic approach to art, one that values diverse experiences and encourages each person to make meaning for themselves. In a world where creative expression is limitless, so too should be our interpretations.

 Sources Cited

– Barthes, R. (1977). Image, music, text. Macmillan.

– Chipp, H. B. (1968). Theories of Modern Art: A Source Book by Artists and Critics. University of California Press.

– Derrida, J. (1982). Margins of Philosophy. University of Chicago Press.

– Delbanco, A. (2005). Melville: His World and Work. Vintage.

– Fish, S. (1980). Is There a Text in This Class? The Authority of Interpretive Communities. Harvard University Press.

– Naifeh, S., & Smith, G. W. (1991). Jackson Pollock: An American Saga. Clarkson Potter.

– Sontag, S. (1977). On Photography. Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.

 Suggestions for Further Reading

1. Gadamer, H.-G. (1975). Truth and Method. Explores how understanding emerges through historical context rather than authorial intent.
2. Eco, U. (1979). The Role of the Reader: Explorations in the Semiotics of Texts. Analyzes how readers construct meaning based on their interpretations.
3. Ricoeur, P. (1981). Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences. Investigates interpretation’s role in human sciences, linking text to reader experiences.
4. Wimsatt, W. K., & Beardsley, M. (1946). “The Intentional Fallacy.” Classic essay arguing against the necessity of authorial intent in criticism.
5. Bourdieu, P. (1993). The Field of Cultural Production. Considers how cultural context influences interpretation beyond creator intent.
6. Foucault, M. (1969). What is an Author? In Aesthetics, Method, and Epistemology. Questions the role of the author in the creation of meaning.
7. Heidegger, M. (1971). Poetry, Language, Thought. Contends that meaning exists beyond the creator, grounded in language itself.
8. Woolf, V. (1929). A Room of One’s Own. Reflects on how personal perspective informs interpretation in literature.
9. Benjamin, W. (1936). The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. Explores how reproduction shifts interpretation away from the artist’s intent.

Disclaimer: The images and videos in this post are AI-generated creations, intended purely for illustrative and conceptual purposes. They are not real-life representations and should not be interpreted as such. Their sole purpose is to offer a visual means of exploring the topics discussed in this post.