|
January 10, 2009
The title of the picture suggests the intention of the maker of the picture. But how can we detect precisely what the photographer intended?
The intentional fallacy in aesthetics questions the assumption often made that the meaning intended by the author of a visual work is of primary importance. It is argued that the meaning of the image does not belong to its producer, but rather, once it is published, it is detached from the picture maker and is beyond their power to control its meaning.
Each picture contains multiple layers and meanings that come into play when the picture resides in a flow of images in the mediascape that constitutes constitutes "a multi-dimensional space. Signifiers in a visualscape or language refer to other signifiers in the same system. (Think of a dictionary, which constantly directs the reader to other signifiers.) This discloses the disjointed nature of pictures, their fissures of meaning and their incongruities, interruptions, and breaks and opens up the way that the process of ‘re-viewing art through a prism of contemporary concerns’
An earlier version of the post can be found on the altfotonet blog.
|
This reminds me of Barthes “The Death of the Author” in which he announced a metaphorical event: the "death" of the author as an authentic source of meaning for a given text. Barthes argued that any literary text has multiple meanings, and that the author was not the prime source of the work's semantic content.