system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: The idea of "The Death of the Author" is entirely legitimate

Here's a quick definition of this from TVTropes: "Death of the Author is a concept from mid-20th Century literary criticism; it holds that an author's intentions and biographical facts (the author's politics, religion, etc) should hold no special weight in determining an interpretation of their writing. This is usually understood as meaning that a writer's views about their own work are no more or less valid than the interpretations of any given reader."

To me, what makes art special is that there is no right answer, that two people can experience a movie or a book and walk away with completely different interpretations of the themes, events and characters. If I can back up my interpretation of a piece of art with direct evidence from the art than why is my interpretation any less valid?

I'll give an example, this is actually what inspired me to make this post, and I think it's a little funny. So I was in Panera Bread and there was this picture up on the wall, it was for and by Panera Bread - it had the logo in it which I'll touch on in a second - but it was not a typical advertisement, it was just a picture really. I've tried to find the picture online but I can't find it, so here's my description:

There were two women, one on the left and one on the right - you're looking at them from the side, at their profiles. They're both looking down on a table between them as they're making cookies. They're wearing aprons and their sleeves are pulled up, and they're both putting icing on the cookies. The woman on the left looks about 60, give or take a few years. The woman on the right looks 35-40. They both have darker features, I thought they looked related like mother and daughter but my girlfriend disagreed so take that as you will. The colors of the painting were not saturated, they were pretty pale. Most of all, the women looked quite solemn, not even that they were focused on making the cookies, they just looked tired more than anything else. Finally, on the collar of the woman on right, is the Panera Bread logo sticking out.

To me, this picture can be interpreted as a critique of capitalism and its effects. How poorer people can be stuck in low-paying dead end jobs which gets moved on to their children, as they did not have the same opportunities as your average person for education, for example. I couldn't help but contrast the looks on their faces and the overall paleness of the picture with how bright and colorful the cookies were, like how behind what capitalism produces, there's something working their ass off and suffering - there's darkness behind the color. And then the Panera Bread logo just seemed the like the final punch to the gut, that this process is being orchestrated by this corporation being lead by people who are being paid more money than either of these workers could ever dream of receiving.

I said it was funny, because obviously that was not the intention. Panera Bread just wanted an artsy looking picture to hang in their stores because it helps with the atmosphere. And my own thoughts and beliefs simply informed an over analysis of this innocuous picture. But I still don't think I'm wrong, photography is an art form and I gave reasons for my interpretation. Whether or not they're good is up to you but they are reasons.

Additionally, I don't even consider "The Death of the Author" to *really* be the death of the author simply because the author or the artist or the director or whatever has all the power in the making of their art. If an artist has an interpretation of their work as their making it, they have all the power to add evidence which makes their interpretation legitimate.

I have an example of this too, (I promise this is shorter) in the show Bojack Horseman, there's a character named Todd that was revealed to be asexual at the end of the third season and the beginning of the fourth season. The show's creator and showrunner Raphael Bob-Waksberg has said that he interpreted Todd to be asexual before this point, from the first 2 seasons or so, he interpreted something deeper of a character he created that, at that point, had no evidence whatsoever in the show. He followed his interpretation and used his power as the author to make Todd asexual. Todd isn't asexual because Raphael said so, he's asexual because of all of the evidence from the show, from all the stories and lines of dialogue related to Todd's love life throughout the entire series.

That is the true power of the author, that they can create their own evidence for their interpretation of their work. And even still, people can have differing interpretations because there are so many factors to account for regardless of the artform that an author couldn't possibly make every detail definitively prove their interpretation.
gpt
It's got elements of truth, but it also certainly has flaws.  One obvious example is sequels.  Information learned in sequels to a book can certainly inform our understanding of the first book.  Sequels written by the same author are and should remain more valid than "fanfic" written by other authors.  If we really take the Death of the Author too seriously, then we'd have to conclude that there's no difference between sequels written by the actual author taking advantage of foreshadowing they deliberately introduced early on, and sequels written by other authors taking advantage of whatever they want to turn into foreshadowing after the fact.