How do we reconcile the virtually infinite amount of ways to interpret a work with authorial intent?

Pragmatism

Read Derrida.

>suspects garfield
>it was garfield

future predictions are based on past truths.
stereotypes.

Woa I legit never looked at it this way
I always assumed he saw Garfield smoking
The unverified presumption that Garfield stole it adds a whole new layer of depth
Bravo Jim

You never grasped it? That was the fucking point of the comic. The punchline was that his thought bubble was so obviously a setup that he KNEW that Garfield had his pipe. It's almost deterministic in a way.

Who is this guy he's fucking great

>the smoke extends into the blank border of the strip

WHAT DID HE MEAN BY THIS

drew barrymore's half-brother

If the point is not clearly duscernable, then ambiguity was one if the intentions.

"Its about ur perspective, man," Is really cliche ino.

is this real life

Most good art is ambiguous because really good art allows you to reflect meaning from it on to your own life.

I kind of hate the argument that we can't for certain know authorial intent. It's true, but it seems to mostly be argued by people who want to use it to justify their own unwillingness to actually interpret art.

Just let it mean what it means to you. It doesn't have to be objective, but creation and consumption art are such important means of self-reflection, and I hate to see people tear down people who use them

Incredible.

I propose Resurrection of the Author.

The German Constitutional Court in uses possibility of interpretation as a criteria for art. A work of art has to constantly open opportunities for new interpretations.
Personally I feel like interpretation is the only meaningful aspect of art. If it doesn't evoke feelings or thoughts, I personally don't care. If it doesn't do that for anybody, it's art of no value.

>how do we reconcile the virtually infinite amount of ways to interpret a work with authorial intent?
authorial intent is unstable and open to subdivision and interpretation itself

the really interesting question is- if the author is not an authority over their work, then who or what is?

you will find plenty of self-serving answers to that question

our lord and savoir jesus christ and also me and harold bloom

It's probably the greatest YouTube video ever created

Hegel solved this

There never can be an absolute interpretation; but psychoanalysis can be of assistance. No author is 100% aware of their own intent.

youtube.com/watch?v=2MMKB6zYbrc

why did i watch this for 8 minutes

by categorizing them into broad perspectives and criticisms that already exist and seeing if meanings can emerge that the text can seem to reasonably suggest at

Tell me more.

How do i take my pipe back, i know the cat has it, it is grasping it tightly, how do i overcome this

The cat has and always will have "your" pipe. You never HAD a pipe. What the pipe represents, you never had.

by understanding Authorial intent is the correct way to interpret a work.

youtube.com/watch?v=6_NeqMAAsBk

But Im addicted to that pipe, I need to find it.

No, that is the solution.

>And he said, "The man is like a wise fisherman who cast his net into the sea and drew it up from the sea full of small fish. Among them the wise fisherman found a fine large fish. He threw all the small fish back into the sea and chose the large fish without difficulty. Whoever has ears to hear, let him hear." - Gospel of Thomas

Mmmmmmmm he wanted to wait for them little fuckers to grow, nigga? Motherfuckin' guy gonna eat them all tho, just give em time n shit.

AMIRITE?!

>seconds
>waiting
You were never despooked

no you dolt hes trying to selectively breed small fish to sell as bitesize snacks

basic economics

Ok seriously. What the fuck did he mean by this?

he be teachin an shit yo
he be the real deeep nigga

it's funny how the pipe strip is actually deeper. this is good tho

I'm half an hour in.

HOw many different ways can you interpret this video: youtube.com/watch?v=KgmoMO66uPg

postmodernism is done grandpa

get with the times

the trick is to understand gender.
If you understand the gender you can understand their motivations.

The only way to read Garfield is to imagine Garfield is Zizek and make up things he would say.

now I wanna see Zizek analyse Garfield

>almost 5 hours long

why

To include every answer they got.

REALITY IS THE SMOKE

NEOPLATONIC MYSTICISM CONFIRMED
THE WORLD IS JUST A SHADOW OF THE TRUTH

WE'RE IN THE CAVE = THE CAT HAS YOUR PIPE

IT ALL MAKES SENSE

>giving up after 8 minutes
Not sure I've ever seen a more reddit post tbqhwy

Yes, but... WHY

IT'S ART NIGGA
IT DON'T NEED A REASON

It's about as artistic (and so derivative) as this thread.

>hasn't seen the last 10 minutes

>those last eight minutes

WHAT DOES IT MEAN?

Authorial intent is unknowable, even if the author were to sit the fuck down and write it out

There are not an infinite number of ways to interpret a text

Next question

>There are not an infinite number of ways to interpret a text

prove it
also op covered his ass by saying "virtually" anyway

I'm sorry - there are infinite interpretations of a text. However only so many will be legitimate, and all the rest will be truly worthless. Interpretations require evidence, and evidence must come from somewhere.

There are only so many humans, and each human can only create so many interpretations. Ergo you are a dumb

??? Doesn't matter how many people interpret a text, doesn't matter who they are. There's one text, and it doesn't change. The well of evidence remains constant.

There is not an infinite number of interpretations if everybody dies.

You're arguing a point I'm not even trying to make, and you're not doing it well. The number of arguments that can be made on a subject has nothing to do with the people making them. "There are 6 interpretations of this text" and "There can be a hundred interpretations of this text" are very different statements.

This is not even the point I was interested in making. You suck

But that's not the point you were making. You said "there are infinite interpretations", not "there can be infinite interpretations". Sometimes you just have to accept when you're wrong so you can improve

That is not the point I was making. The point I was making was that only some interpretations are useful and legitimate out of whatever number that can be made. I don't give a flying fuck how many that number may be. You can say whatever you want about a text and call it an interpretation, but what matters is what you say about a text that is supportable.

>new IP
Yeah sure whatever you say..."user".

Ha ha what juxtaposition!!

...

I don't get it

really turns on the neurons

now the thread can really get going

not getting it

>you see the cat in the anglosphere SNIFFF is almost a subversive element and by keeping it as a pet and exerting some control over it SNIFF people can maintain the illusion that they have some control over their own sociocultural perpetuation but in garfield SSSSNIFpFFPFP even a puny cat is an agent of MAYHEM *stares at the camera for a few seconds* and so the owner - i forgot his name SNIFF - has to be this deliberately watery character because to admit that even drrrrrop SNIFF of subversion can have such a huge effect is-is-is...we have to relegate it somehow SNIFFFFFFF

seriously can someone actually explain this

I get that we're all worried about being meme'd or whatever but I really don't get this

>The "Cow tools" episode 'is one that will probably haunt me for the rest of my life. A week after it was published back in 1992, 1 wanted to crawl into a hole somewhere and die. Cows, as some Far Side readers know, are a favorite subject of mine. I've always found them to be the quintessentially absurd animal for situations even more absurd. Even the name "cow," to me, is intrinsically funny.

>And so one day I started thinking back on an anthropology course I had in college and how we learned that man used to be defined as "the only animal that made and shaped tools." Unfortunately, researchers discovered that certain primates and even some bird species did the same thing-so the definition had to be extended somewhat to avoid awkward situations such as someone hiring a crew of chimpanzees toremodel their kitchen.

>Inevitably, I began thinking about Cows, and what if they, too, were discovered as toolmakers. What would they make? Primitive tools are always, well, primitive-looking-appearing rather nondescript to the lay person. So, it seemed to me, whatever a cow would make would have to be even a couple notches further down the "skill-o-meter."

>I imagined, and subsequently drew, a cow standing next to her workbench, proudly displaying her handiwork (hoofiwork?). The "cow tools" were supposed to be just meaningless artifacts-only the cow or a cowthropologist is supposed to know what they're used for.

>The first mistake I made was in thinking this was funny. The second was making one of the tools resemble a crude handsaw-which made already confused people decide that their only hope in understanding the cartoon meant deciphering what the other tools were as well. Of course, they didn't have a chance in hell.

>But, for the first time, "Cow tools" awakened me to the fact that my profession was not just an isolated exercise in the comer of my apartment. The day after its release, my phone began to ring with inquiries from reporters and radio stations from regions in the country where The Far Side was published. Everyone, it seemed, wanted to know what in the world this cartoon meant! My syndicate was equally bombarded, and I was ultimately asked to write a press release explaining "Cow tools." Someone sent me the front page of one newspaper which, down in one corner, ran the tease, "Cow Tools: What does it mean? I was mortified.

>In the first year or two of drawing The Far Side, I always believed my career perpetually hung by a thread. And this time I was convinced it had been finally severed. Ironically, when the dust had finally settled and as a result of all the "noise" it made, "Cow tools" became more of a boost to The Far Side than anything else.

>So, in summary, I drew a really weird, obtuse cartoon that no one understood and wasn't funny and therefore I went on to even greater success and recognition. Yeah-I like this country.

The fact that Cow Tools still confuses people makes me feel good somehow

woah...this really made me think

Real life Seinfeld.

Parents have an influence on a child, but they should not have full control over them once they leave their care.

>he didn't watch the entire thing
pleb

>caring about what someone meant instead of placing all concern on what was actually written
This meme is cancer and is the root problem of American jurisprudence.

The fuck are you talking about? Americans are Protestant af

The joke is that the tools become increasingly complex, in a silly manner.

This author is known for the sheep strip, which is a summary of jews on /pol/