Context of Practice: Essay Plan

Throughout my essay, I will discuss and explore the complexities of authorship and interactivity within art and design. I will also look at the thesis that they are one and the same, and cannot be separated. I wish to explore this further, as the role of visual communicators relies heavily on the interpretation and interactivity of its intended audience. Because authorship is actually within most everyday items, the audience should want to learn more about what role this plays in their life, and to what extent they have the power in the relationship.

The first thing the audience will want to learn will be what authorship entails, as it will likely be a new subject to them. The reader will need to know the common perceptions that art is what someone takes responsibility for, and authorship is the practice of attaching a name to every artefact (Beöthy, 2013). My audience will then want to learn more about what being the author means, and how the author is the centre and origin of the work (Allen, 2003 p.73), as well as being referred to as the creator, but not the life, of their work (Barthes, 1968 p.52)

The audience will then probably want to learn more about the history of authorship, and how it became a lot more abstract as a concept after the 1960’s where there was a shift in the sole determinacy of art (Beöthy, 2013) (Rock, 1996). I will then discuss the complexities of interpretation of artwork, and whether this has always been based solely on the ideologies of the author (Foucalt, 1979 p.159) or whether over time, this ‘aura’ has decayed to leave the meaning up the the audience (Storey, 2008 p.69)

The next thing my audience will want to read about will be authorship in art, especially in reference to the understanding and personal acceptance of art through shared ‘common knowledge’ (Storey, 2008) (Silverman, 1983 p.27). This will begin a discussion about Middleton’s question ‘at what point does the audience have an impact on the meaning of art?’ through exploring whether the entire meaning and feelings evoked are universally the creation of the author or artists (O’toole, 2011 p.11) or whether the meaning is only implied, and interpreted differently to each individual (Althusser, 1969 p.67). This will then develop into understanding the philosophical views on authorial power (Landow, 1992 p.90) and how this can manifest itself into a division of labour (Marx, 1970 p.109), especially within interactive art.

Then I will begin to discuss authorship within everyday life through design. This will begin with the audience reading about how the authors sole role is to give stability and visibility to the work (Allen, 2003 p.73-74) (Storey, 2008 p.75), whilst considering which relationship to the work is more important and needed (Althusser, 1969 p.113). This will develop into a discussion about the reliance on the audience to fulfil its purpose through common liminal spaces (Macdonald, 2013), and whether the author, or creator, only initiates the item (Irvin, 2005), which then takes on its own life (Barthes, 1968 p.52-3). I will then look at the possibility of uniqueness and authorship co existing (Marx, 1970 p.109) and whether authorship is better hidden behind high demand, mass produced products and labels (Miles, 1998).

Finally, I will consider how authorship may have changed so much over time that nothing can ever belong to one person, as ideas cannot be copyrighted, and communication belongs only as an intangible relationship between humans (Rock, 1996) and one cannot communicate with oneself. Before looking at how authorship could be seen as only ever shared, if not in its intended form, then as a new item for a new purpose entirely (Rock, 1996).

Images I will be looking at: