Taking sides: Text or Context?

For both questions the answer has to be a little from both but not too much.

I think one should acquaint with the background of a work (or the artist) if you want to understand Modern Art. It helps to understand the work. But it is not a rule you need to follow. You can certainly enjoy something just as it is. Of course your interpretation can differ immensely from what the artist wanted to express. This is most apparent in (lyrical) music. Or maybe not.

it depends on how autobiographical the artist is .

Oh, that perennial chestnut. This might be a monumental cop-out, but I reckon it all depends on the intention of the artist, regardless of the genre.

I certainly think that to seperate, for example, Tracey Emin the artist from Tracey Emin the person would be virtually impossible. An understanding of who she is, is essential to reach an appreciation and understanding of her work. Surprisingly, she even concedes that her work will become LESS valid after her death.

Then again, the phenomenon of DJ culture turns the cult of personality on its head, where the producer of the work makes a conscious decision to be anonymous, the Gorillaz concept is another example.

I think that any medium where the subject matter is personal can only be enhanced by discovering more about the person behind it. An old friend of mine once said that the poetry of Sylvia Plath left him cold, it did nothing for him, until someone lent him a copy of the Bell Jar. After reading her novel he finally understood exactly where she was coming from.

I'd just like to say, I like the way Anthony summed up my entire ramblings in one concise sentence.

Poetry is probably the art form in which some sort of context can help the most. The thing about DJs is interesting because dance music in general is so all inclusive that its hard to pick out anything personal from an artists work other than his own distinctive sound.

Fear of being played for a sucker = philistinism

That's a bit cryptic dave. (In what context are you making that remark?) I go for Text, because if I judge something and say "this is shit" then it's frankly silly for someone to come up to me and say, ah, but it's not shit because the author was blind/illiterate/dictating by blinking one eye/married to Ted Hughes/Ted Hughes/gay/President/typing without editing/stoned/etc/etc. It HAS to be judged on it's own merits, otherwise we are just left with gossip. Surely!

Literary theory: Con or Text?

bahahahah!! it's just like being back at university!!

i left uni in 1998 and that was the year that "the author" was finally coming back in to fashion amongst critics, because he/she/it had been killed so many times that it just wasn't funny any more. it all started with Roland Barthes in "The Death of the Author", who stated among other things that

"To give a text an Author is to impose a limit on that text, to furnish it with a final signified, to close the writing..."

this is a very nice, interesting idea and the springboard for a lot of frenzied discussion and the fact that it stuck around so long is a tribute to that. but i find it ultimately irresponsible. of COURSE art and artists are influenced by the world around them, by their own economical, psychological, personal states and the conditions - any number of conditions - external to them. to read a text like, for example, wordsworth's 'prelude' without having at least a passing knowledge of the french revolution, for is a waste of time simply because a lot references and images just won't make sense and you won't get the full impact of the text.

books and ideas don't just materialise out of thin air. that is the final, concrete fact and to study either text or context without reference to the other is to only get half the picture. art is a product of society *and* vice versa, the two are too hopelessly intertwined to separate.

oops. for is a waste of time = is a waste of time, and a lot references = a lot of references. doh! think i got a bit carried away there...

I don't know much about Jason Pierce, but I just bought the new Spiritualized single and I don't need any context thanks very much. It's fucking class.

I found out that Knut Hamsun hated the English and was a bit of a Nazi in his old age. I wish I didn't know this at all, it ruins his books a little. Maybe irrational?...So, my answer is NO, I don't want to know anything about anybody who paints pictures I like, makes music I like or makes films I like. They always say something stupid which impacts on my appreciation of their work. Of course sometimes it is inevitable that you will learn certain facts, but really I'd rather not know. It's the void for me.

i can see why ronan and jel say what they do. on another thread i put the Gayer-Anderson cat as one of the pieces of art that's stayed with me, and insofar as i can analyse it i guess the mystery of who created such a beautiful thing and why is part of its appeal. i just don't see how you can (especially) read anything without detecting just a little bit of intention in there - whether that be the author's intentions or your own. the very act of reading means that the work of art is filtered through your own preconceptions and ideas, so by the time you've read the words they are no longer in a void (if indeed they ever were).

I also think Anthony's answer is spot on. If the author is trying to write something autobiographical, or a state of the nation piece then the context will add richness to it. If it is meant as pure escapism then probably the context is less useful.

Spiritualized records are fantastically autobiographical - Because Jason Pierce lives such a dull life.

I often read novels as authobiography...I think writer X is saying this, this is what writer X is like, this is what they thin etc. But then writer X turns out to be something completely different, so in a way I feel cheated.

As for identity on the internet, we can only rely on text for indications of identity. I think things like blogs or diaries which ramble about everyday things like walking the dog, washing the car etc, provide a firm grounding for the individual...so in this instance they are the context. In a place like this, it's not so important to have a context, but it is nice to have honest off topic as it makes the individual seem more genuine and authentic.

"autobiography" can be incredibly misleading: eg is [x] talking abt what s/he IS or what she wd LIKE TO BE? Also it means you can end up judging a book by whether the writer was a "nice person"

death of the author was introduced to punch a way thru an immense amount of tenth-rate crit which was actually 12th-rate biography: and also to clear a way for role of reader, which is not passive and uncreative

i think context is important in terms of era it was written, social mores, other texts being written, etc, but author intentionality is way dead...kill the author.

I just saw that Pete. You bitch you. Jason Pierce may not be president of the students union or anything but he still leads a mildly interesting life.

I've met Jason Pierce. He's a nice guy, but absolutely nobody will be surprised to learn that he was STONED OUT OF HIS MIND the entire time.

The whole question calls up my grad school days and makes me cry. Therefore -- I like knowing historical context for something old if only because things will make more sense for me. For something I've lived through, I figure I should know at least some of the context already.

I think everybody seems to be mistaking experiential for autobiographical here.

When I listen to Spiritualized I am amazed by how Jason Spaceman (as once was) manages to convey his experiences to us with such clarity and emotion, but he is not telling us anything about his own biography. He has had experiences, and crystalises them so that if we have had the same or similar experiences we can see some of ourselves in them.

When you think you're reading biography, what you're actually doing is you're filling in the gaps of the (extrememly limited) "Gossip" you know about Kate Radley or whatever, with the emotions you have conjured up by listening to the music (emotions which are normally dormant, but which belong solely to you and not to Jason).

As Jason himself said: "When you listen to Patsy Klein 'Walking After Midnight' you don't think 'Oh I did that, I walked after midnight.' It's a metaphor for a universal. You certainly don't think 'What time is it? Where are my shoes? I better get going.'" You know that she, or whoever wrote the song must have walked after midnight at some point and had an experience, but it doesn't actually mean you know the biographical details of this walk, it just stirs emotions in you which make you think that you do.