Dethronement of All Authors

“Art is subjective.” is a self-explanatory statement. Something that exists to communicate and receive feedback from the audience, even if said audience only consists of the creator themselves  obviously is dependent on the subject and not a problem which can be broken down and solved. It is just like saying. “Can opener opens cans.” No one disagrees with this in practice, otherwise we could not simply create or enjoy art. However, in theory, this is contested in the belief that art must be subjugated by an authority. Most people would not accept a censorship bureau, but rather; a subtler, more abstract type of authority.

The first important authority is the perceived general audience. Thinking their own biases, tastes, emotions are simply superior and universal, and the worthiest of consideration. There are certain reasons why such a thought might develop:

• They are exposed to a media which regularly caters to them, to the exclusion of most anything else. There isn’t much need for subjectivity when one can stay in a bubble.
• Popularity, high rankings, critical acclaim, sales numbers etc. Certainly there are common patterns in media, and some art have more appeal to higher number of people. There is nothing that proves universality here, and even if there was an art which was truly universally appealing, that would not diminish its subjectivity. Something less appealing but different would not be entirely less valuable, because it would come out from a different human being.
• Rarity, is perhaps even more effective. After all. only the truly worthy can experience true art, for true causes, not to satisfy the simple whims of a mere commoner, right? We decided this work is “cringe”, no one can sincerely enjoy it anymore. Also, popular things grow their fandom. Fandoms are bad, and everyone should feel bad about a work by mere association to a fandom.
• The worst of all, the politicization of aesthetics. Here, merely consuming art becomes an ideological battle, and thus there is hardly any room for plurality. Unsurprisingly, this enables rather reactionary ideologies.

The second authority is positivist art criticism. The words “subjective” and “objective” are often used in a loaded way, as extreme opposite ends. It posits that something is either entirely personal and impossible to articulate or must be able to be solved like a math question. It’s a fairly common opinion that humor and music is “too subjective” to be analyzed, but something such as game design is often treated as definitive. As said before, subjectivity does not imply absolute uniqueness. When creating art, an objective goal can be used in creating different experiences, such as certain filming techniques. Art can be analyzed in different ways, and certain analyses aren’t more authoritative because they refer to more certain, calculable properties. The very process of deciding which observations about a work of art is personal. Just as there is no finality in art, there is no final word in art critique and that doesn’t make any certain interpretation less valuable. Something can be personal and still be shared collectively.

The third important authority is the creator themselves, they are “authors” after all. The concept of Death of the Author is applied always knowingly or unknowingly at a certain level, as it is simply a corollary to the subjectivity of art. Limitations of that concept is being argued still today, but in the process of experiencing art, one is only concerned with visuals and sounds right there, the creator only exists in the art at that moment; this is not something contested. However, people still feel obliged to let their personal experience of art dictated by the creator for various reasons.

• “Canon” is supposed to supersede and control all interpretations. The story is reduced to a mere series of events, replacing any cultural context or personal connection with perceived approval from the author as the one and only legitimate source of validation. In particular, it’s often used to argue that a work is “not political” (i.e “not about things I don’t want to be reminded of.”), and invalidate all queer readings of a work.
• “Target audience ” is a notable case of invoking both the author and the audience. Here, even the very experience itself becomes under scrutiny, as if enjoying things wrong is a social taboo. Of course, a critic should admit when a work does not speak much to their tastes, but that doesn’t make the criticism inherently worthless. This is a false dichotomy between the contents of work and personal opinion. All criticism that’s not written as marketing centers one’s personal taste, it’s just that “the taste” is often more complicated than “I like this work because it confirms to type of content, style etc. what I’ve already found appealing before.”
• When a creator turns out to be responsible for unethical things, it might be difficult to engage in their work. The process of experiencing a work entails separating art from the artist, but the art is a part of the artist. So if one sees only a domestic abuser when they see a face, they might not be able to see a fictional character in that face. That’s one of more understandable reasons not to discard author as an authority, but in many cases there is no reason to shame people who can see past an author, that’s what supposed to happen. This goes other way around too. A person with good intentions can make fiction with bad implications. Trying to judge one’s entire personhood around their work alone is not fruitful.
• When discussing the cultural impact of a work, or its function as something other than art, invoking the author might seem intuitive. It’s quite possible to look at a creator and the creation process of a work, and deduce their purposes. However even here, it is not actually necessary. We can understand that something is Nazi propaganda without even knowing anything about the author. A work of art is an alive being, we can find out its place in greater cultural context just by communicating it. The only thing to keep in mind is not to invalidate personal connections. It’s entirely possible that a work can be harmful in certain contexts while being valuable and in others.
• As long as art remains a commodity, supporting works means elevating their creators. As such, it is perfectly reasonable to not support harmful works and creators, but the limits of individual choices should be recognized. It is likely prudent not to commission drawings from that child abuse fetishist, but worrying about whether a blockbuster movie gets funded by the military doesn’t achieve much , the boycotts rarely do anything for a reason.

It’s no coincidence that most arguments about invoking author, audience, “rules of art” etc. seek to end the discussion. Establishing an authority on becomes a very literal goal. “You can’t enjoy lesbians in the show, because it is made for men.”, “This game is only a silly meme, you can’t enjoy it sincerely”, “The thing you love sucks” and so on. Of course, such an authority is not independent of existing power structures. De-personalizing art is dangerous not only because it stifles the discourse and collective treasure of ideas, but because it only ends up to serve the existing oppressive relations. Striped of the person, all remains to the viewer is to emulate other’s experiences. ” AAA game industry is a very poignant example here. The studios freely appropriate real life conflicts, struggles but absolutely refuse that their games are making any political statements. They use microtransations, premium access, timed content, and all kinds of devious psychological manipulation to goad players into certain behaviours. They discourage negative reviews and critical presses. Often they are hostile to hacking and emulation, instead offering their own restrictive services., also try to subjugate modding at times. Even the simple idea of being able to play games offline is seen as undesirable. Never mind not owning the game, the player is not even allowed to own their experiences. Only what’s useful to capital is valid.
When freed from the audience, author, and absolutist criticism, an unrestricted, bountiful flow of exchange between the person and the work starts. Indeed, it is not one way at all. A game will be completely different to a first-timer, a veteran of a genre, a beta-tester, a writer who plays it for reviews, a person who revisits it a decade later. As the viewer looks at the work and the work reflects back at them. Art can tell a lot about its viewer, often more than it tells about its creator. Less in a collective sense, and more in a personal way. Trans people usually read gender-fluidity in a work differently than cis people. Nostalgia is mis-applied in criticism quite often — and oh do I have problems about it — but it’s not a lesser feeling to have towards art. The cozy language here might be misleading, but personal connection is actually neutral phrase. It doesn’t have to be positive, nor healthy. No matter how masterfully a writer deconstructs it, some will always side with tyrants in a story. No matter how blatant it is, some will defiantly deny any queerness in a work. Nevertheless, it’s all about this connection, not the series of letters, pixels or sounds. A major part of creator’s challenge is to make what they want to say a part of the connection between the viewer and the work, but they can never have the last word.
De-personalizing art make it less worthwhile for all. No one should feel inferior because their love of work is not seemingly based on objective qualities, all qualities we seek derive from the personal. Overly concerning about whether a work is problematic or not does not much else besides punishing oneself. Yes, even when a work is terrible in from one perspective, from another interpretation it can be wonderful, they can co-exist even for the same person. We can and should be critical and still cherish our connections to art. Which creators we need to support financially and uplift their vices brings a valid ethical angle, but it’s important to remember in most cases that’s something beyond what individuals alone can impact. Do the same to ideas too. “Steal” the ideas of thinkers, writers you like and leave the rest. Representation matters, but it’s not more important than your experiences. Interpreting art is re-creating it in one’s own image, fully embrace it! Only art that successfully lives inside people can impact society.
This is why “death of the author” is so important to me. It’s not merely about ignoring author’s post-publish output, it is liberating art from the tyranny that turns the viewer and the creator into laborers who are coerced to produce the existing systems in art again and again, for the wage of a small window of human feelings. The only way to resist this is to make art ourselves. I call this stance “dethronement of all authors”. Unlike death of the author, it is more interested in all meta-authors of work rather than author’s brand, and implies a more deliberate rejection of de-personalization imposed upon us.
This article mostly talks about in abstract terms, because it is an introduction to a series where I examine various topics concerning de-personalization. And I will focus on video games, because I see a lack of discussion of this kind on that area, but games not only bring whole new dimensions to this subject, but it constantly generates such discourse that… oh my Madoka the discourse!…
This article is written thanks to my dearest Patrons and special thanks to: Acelin, Alexandra Morgan, Emelina, Laura Watson, MasterofCubes, Makkovar, Otakundead and Spencer Gill.