• Next message: Hardy M. Cook: "Re: The Reduced Shakespeare Company"
• Previous message: Hardy M. Cook: "Branagh"
• Maybe in reply to: Hardy M. Cook: "Authorial Intention"
• Next in thread: Hardy M. Cook: "Re: Authorial Intention"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ]

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.0536  Wednesday, 7 March 2001

[1]     From:   Manuela Rossini <Manuela.Rossini@unibas.ch>
        Date:   Tuesday, 06 Mar 2001 16:57:10 +0100
        Subj:   Authorial Intention

[2]     From:   R. A. Cantrell <racan@flash.net>
        Date:   Tuesday, 6 Mar 2001 17:10:00 -0600
        Subj:   Authorial Intention

[3]     From:   Andrew W. White <awhite@wam.umd.edu>
        Date:   Tuesday, 6 Mar 2001 20:41:44 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.0529 Authorial Intention


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Manuela Rossini <Manuela.Rossini@unibas.ch>
Date:           Tuesday, 06 Mar 2001 16:57:10 +0100
Subject:        Authorial Intention

Clifford Stetner asks whether "there is anything analogous to the 'death
of the author' in art criticism?"

There is:
Keith Moxey. Poststructuralism, Cultural Politics, and Art History.
Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1994.  See esp. Chapter 3 "Authorship" and the
theory put to practice in the second part of the book. He takes issues
with Erwin Panofsky's famous introduction to MEANING IN THE VISUAL ARTS
and discusses artists from the late Middle Ages to our (post)modern
times: Albrecht Dürer, Erhard Schön, Martin Schongauer, Barbara Kruger,
Julian Schnabel, and, in the final chapter, Hieronymus Bosch,
dismantling elite definitions of artistic "genius" behind readings based
on the artist's biography.

Enjoy!
Manuela Rossini
http://www.unibas.ch/shine/nov2001.htm

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           R. A. Cantrell <racan@flash.net>
Date:           Tuesday, 6 Mar 2001 17:10:00 -0600
Subject:        Authorial Intention

>Do you have a good source for this position that I can present to one of
>the members of my orals committee?

E.D. Hirsch, Validity in Interpretation.  Northrop Frye, Anatomy of
Criticism (I think the last word is right).  I personally will not
supply the proponents of the aforementioned "taboo" with the oxygen of
attention.  I should not like using a list like this to express personal
disapprobation, but there is no language strong enought to express my
attitude toward the againmentioned proponents. From whom have you
learned?  Is the time spent discussing theory well spent?

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Andrew W. White <awhite@wam.umd.edu>
Date:           Tuesday, 6 Mar 2001 20:41:44 -0500
Subject: 12.0529 Authorial Intention
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.0529 Authorial Intention

Depending on how deep you want to go, you might want to begin with
selected readings of David Hume and Immanuel Kant -- both of them go
into the problem of the evanescent self, with one of them (Hume)
claiming the self is a mere convenience, and Kant answering that it is
more of a necessity.  A _very_ brief summary of two very complex
thinkers, but the two of them laid the groundwork for much of what we
see now in terms of 'dead authors' and such.  The problem of
subjectivity/objectivity has been with us for some time...

Cheers, and good luck -- I'm in the prospectus phase myself.

Andy White
University of Maryland, College Park

• Next message: Hardy M. Cook: "Re: The Reduced Shakespeare Company"
• Previous message: Hardy M. Cook: "Branagh"
• Maybe in reply to: Hardy M. Cook: "Authorial Intention"
• Next in thread: Hardy M. Cook: "Re: Authorial Intention"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ]