Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Glice
I think he's a gorgeous writer. By which I mean his style is lovely to read. I've spent the whole with very dry semiotics and Barthes seems like a reading blowjob right now.
I'm never to sure where I stand on his ideas though. I think part of the problem with approaching this sort of thing is that you have to disconnect yourself from the notion of canonical interpretations; intertexuality is irrefutable if Saussure is irrefutable, and you're an idiot if you're refuting Saussure.
If you seriously don't agree with post-Saussurian linguistics (and I'd by no means suggest you should agree) then it's important to look upon it as the dominant paradigm of crit theory. I personally would happily see a cap on the proliferation of polysemic [sic] readings, but this is more to do with the failings of the academic community at large than it is specific theorists.
Sorry, I've dribbled a bit there - in essence, my feeling is that Barthes is necessary not just because the art becomes autonomous but because the author becomes a more passive part of the artform; you don't really get an expansion of an artform without ideas the destabalise the norms.
Have you read Barthes' mythologies? I read the one about wine earlier. Amazing.
|
I haven't read Saussure but I would still refute intertextuality. And I don't know anything about post-Saussurian linguistics or polysemic readings. I have far to go in educating myself.
Yeah but isn't "art becoming autonomous" essentially what the New Critics were doing? I don't think Barthes was allowing the art to become autonomous but rather allowing the reader to become autonomous.
Nope I haven't read his mythologies. I'll add that to the long list of things I need to read.