Kaylee Hanson ‘24, Feature Editor
The relationship between a piece of art and its artist has been long contested; from the prehistoric cave paintings from millennia ago to the complex films and documentaries of today, people have often speculated about an artist’s intent in their creation. The meaning we find in art, whether that be the surrealist paintings of the 1920s or the modern-day action-adventure movies, is important to our understanding, even if we do not realize it. The feeling and message felt when we walk away from a piece of art tends to stay with us, whether we know it or not. So, how much do the creators themselves impart a personal message within their creation? Does the author control the meaning of media, or is it actually the viewer who decides what a piece might mean?
The answer depends on where and what you look at. First, the philosophy of an art piece can affect the relationship between the viewer and the artist. Art history has a variety of movements to explore, but one area that distinguishes this artist-viewer relationship is that of the 1940s Abstract Expressionism, or what most people today simply know as ‘abstract art.’ The seemingly random paint splatters and brush strokes of these paintings do have expressive purposes; according to the Metropolitan Museum of Art, “A[n] [abstract] painting is meant to be a revelation of the artist’s authentic identity,” and is “personal” to the artist. This personal emotion and expression is displayed to the viewer through the painting, and that is, to the painter, the meaning of their work. From this view, in this genre the author’s intent has complete control over the interpretation of his or her art, as art is the author’s imagination visualized in some way.
However, the artist-focused perspective of the Abstract Expressionist movement is only a historical and largely ideological perspective—the application to modern media is far more complicated. Due to the internet and wider accessibility to both tools to make art, and far more fields of art being created, a single art movement can last only a week in today’s world before the public moves onto a new trend. The artist’s intent and viewer’s interpretation, due to this expansion of the internet and influence of shorter trends, have become far more case-by-case, as there is no wider consensus really to look at. The Harry Potter book series by J.K. Rowling is one of the most widespread modern examples of the debate of if an author’s views being imparted into a work really matters, or even affects the work itself’s meaning at all. Online, Rowling has made a variety of hateful comments, many of them invalidating and attacking the transgender community and related activism. Culture newsletter Glamour summarizes the conflict well: “Rowling’s initial tweets and her subsequent doubling down have drawn a lot of ire from trans activists and Harry Potter fans, many of whom had found comfort in the story of an outsider finding a place where he belonged.” This situation is more complicated than the emotions behind splatters of paint. It is important now to consider how much what an artist says outside a work affects the interpretation of the story they have told. One anonymous student said: “I think there is a line that should be drawn with separating art and artist. [Rowling’s] ideals and opinions outside of the book [kind of] do matter to her writing, as her whole world is based on them.” They continued, “Plus, her books and novels outside of Harry Potter are actually about her political takes, so she is clearly capable of putting what she thinks into books.” The works in reference are her newer, more politically charged books, A Casual Vacancy and The Inky Black Heart, both of which have been accused of either being transphobic or behind the times in their messaging. Upon this examination, for an author like Rowling, the possibility of her views seeping into readings of her most famous, beloved series, is high. Ignoring her political involvement and insights outside of the book simply might not be possible to be put aside, as the often inflammatory commentary Rowling is keen to put into her other writing doesn’t simply disappear from the Harry Potter series if it is dismissed.
There is yet another angle to consider: the author’s method of producing that media. Marvel’s superhero films are beloved by some, and scorned by others—but more than anything, they are watched. As a media giant, Marvel movies have a wide range of producers, actors, and companies contributing to their creation; but one contributor that many do not expect to hear is the Department of Defense of the United States (DoD). Gamerant, a reporter of game and movie news, highlights the influence of the military on Marvel movies as “consistent and significant,” citing actors like Brie Larson (Captain Marvel) who shot promotional material for the military, as well as Iron Man, Iron Man 2, Captain America, Captain America: The Winter Soldier, and Captain Marvel all being supported by the DoD. This association with the military has the potential to sway the intent of the movies, as their production directly coincides with promotion for the military. However, the movies are not made by the DoD, nor are the stories they tell written with the express purpose of military promotion. Marvel cinematic intent, most broadly, is to tell action stories; the movies are not promoted as military stories, and often don’t involve the military in a blatant way. This creates a very specific art-artist relationship, where the making of the art has the potential to influence the meaning, even if that is not the initial goal. Senior Brandon Hamel, speaking about this particular art-artist relationship, said, “I think that if the artist wants to, they could add stuff to make it so it’s inseparable from them—but as long as that is not the artist’s intent, I believe that that art can be separated from the artist.” This, for many, applies to this situation. Marvel movies are made with the intent to tell stories of superheroes, and as long as that is the director’s intent, that can be their main meaning.
There are a variety of ways to look at the contribution both viewer and artist make to the meaning of a piece. Depending on what situation is and how you choose to examine the work and its artist, the answer can change. It is not as simple as separating all art from artists, nor is it as simple as every author being the sole creditor for their work.
Lyon Life 