Roland Barthes and John Cage

With Death of the Author, Roland Barthes suggests that literature/writings contain a multidimensional space and that a limit is superimposed on that space when authorship is present. I agree with this statement and really enjoy the idea of divorcing the text from the author because the reader is no longer given a boundary, but instead is free to interpret and explore the multiple layers of a sentence or passage and it's illimitable multiple meanings. If we were to take a writing for it's author's definitive interpretation then we become forced to adhere to a singular viewpoint with no room for creative extension. We are bound to whatever the author wishes; "Author-God" is what Barthes refers to it as or rather a "tyranny": "... literature to be found in contemporary culture is tyrannically centered on the author, his person, his history, his tastes, his passions." Creativity is then stifled.

I think that John Cage understands this as well, although he refers to it as "Zen". One of the examples he gives of this phenomena is called Lecture on Nothing ( which consisted of him repeating the sentence: "If anyone is sleepy let him go to sleep.") It was literally a lecture of nothing. Even the Q&A section of it was constructed of previously prepared answers regardless of what was asked of him. But because it was the same rhythmic structure he had employed at the time in his musical compositions, he was able to create something of poetic substance. He himself said, "It is not poetry by reason of its content or ambiguity but by reason of its allowing musical elements (time, sound) to be introduced into the world of words. Thus, traditionally, information no matter how stuffy (e. g., the sutras and shastras of India) was transmitted in poetry." The audience is then free to interpret as they wish.

But how are these two readings relevant to our Media class? I mean, this isn't an English class after all. Well, I think both of these can be perfectly carried over when looking at a piece of art. Should we limit ourselves to the "Author-God"s interpretation of a piece? No! That is not to say that the author's meaning is invalid but rather allowing ourselves to create a broader view upon a subject. We should take the piece in it's entirety and examine every plane that it has to offer, whatever meaning it may hold to us. This sets us free from constraints and artistic restraints.

Or maybe it's just the postmodernist in me......