Death of the author green-lights anything that Mr Jethro writes, the text doesnt come from Mr Jethro, but from all of us. All of cultures influences have gone into it, Mr Jethro's works changes meaning for each person reading it, Mr Jethro's works then goes onto influence everything else in culture, which then goes onto influence him. A massive feedback loop . Like an oroblous eating its own tale.
Jethro comes into conflict with Julia the artist because of death of the author. Julia see's herself as a facilitator, getting the individual characters to express themselfs, connecting with the creator god inside. Expressing and understanding their life through art. Jethro see's his work as an ether flowing from him, himself as a channel for the influence of culture. Jethro knows to understand his art relies on understanding culture and its influence on him. How can it be judged, when all it is a divining rod of the now. Like a radio Jethro tunes into what is out there and reflects it in his writting. How can he take artistic decisions when he himself is not repsonsible, It seems to Jethro that we are all mirrors reflecting something, not necessary ourselves, and Julias rather dictatorial approach of the artist way ,produces a structure which only reflects the artists own Narcissistic tendencies, focusing on what Julia see's as art , or how Julia see's how art is produced, rather than how culture abosorbs these influences and turns them up. Jethro believes that Julia's view of the art world , tho at first sight is all inclusive , will only lead to judgements between good art and bad art.
Jethro views most of Julias statements with suspicion. Jethro see's the statement "your creativity always leads you to truth and love" as particularly inflammatory , due to the high number of hardworking arms manufactures and weapon designers in the world . Mr Jethro also doesn't like the omnipresent suggestion of gods or higher powers in Julias statements, he doesn't believe in any superstition and that our spirits are not endowed by a mystical force forcing moral dilemmas of good or bad on us. Although Mr Jethro has negated production his work to "culture as a whole" Mr Jethro believes this culture to be a living breathing joined entity, where everyone has a role to play in it beyond a good/bad/beyond moral description. Julias statements are seen by Mr jethro as a security blanket designed to wrap the individual in so his eyes and mind are not melted by the white heat of universal choas/unity.
heres a few of julias statements
in order to be more creative you should no longer accept business calls at home after 6 o'clock
you are a channel for gods creativity, and your work comes from good
your dreams come from god and god has the power to accomplish them
your creativity always leads you to truth and love
your creativity always leads you to forgiveness and self forgiveness
creativity is the natural order of life. life is energy. pure creative energy
you should accept hope
you should act affirmatively
you should accept creative recovery
you should allow yourself to heal
you should accept god to help unfold your life
here is what wiki has to say about the death of the author
The Death of the Author is an essay by the French literary critic and theorist Roland Barthes. It was published in English in the American journal Aspen, no. 5-6 in 1967 and in 1968 in French in the magazine Manteia, no. 5. The essay later appeared in an anthology of his essays, Image-Music-Text (1977), a book that also included his "From Work To Text". The essay argues against incorporating the intentions and biographical context of an author in an interpretation of text, and says that writing and creator are unrelated.
In his essay, Barthes criticizes the method of reading and criticism that relies on aspects of the author's identity — his or her political views, historical context, religion, ethnicity, psychology, or other biographical or personal attributes — to distill meaning from the author's work. In this type of criticism, the experiences and biases of the author serve as a definitive "explanation" of the text. For Barthes, this method of reading may be apparently tidy and convenient but is actually sloppy and flawed:
"To give a text an Author" and assign a single, corresponding interpretation to it "is to impose a limit on that text."
Readers must separate a literary work from its creator in order to liberate it from interpretive tyranny (a notion similar to Erich Auerbach's discussion of narrative tyranny in Biblical parables). Each piece of writing contains multiple layers and meanings. In a well-known quotation, Barthes draws an analogy between text and textiles, declaring that a "text is a tissue [or fabric] of quotations," drawn from "innumerable centers of culture," rather than from one, individual experience. The essential meaning of a work depends on the impressions of the reader, rather than the "passions" or "tastes" of the writer; "a text's unity lies not in its origins," or its creator, "but in its destination," or its audience.
No longer the focus of creative influence, the author is merely a "scriptor" (a word Barthes uses expressly to disrupt the traditional continuity of power between the terms "author" and "authority"). The scriptor exists to produce but not to explain the work and "is born simultaneously with the text, is in no way equipped with a being preceding or exceeding the writing, [and] is not the subject with the book as predicate." Every work is "eternally written here and now," with each re-reading, because the "origin" of meaning lies exclusively in "language itself" and its impressions on the reader.
Barthes notes that the traditional critical approach to literature raises a thorny problem: how can we detect precisely what the writer intended? His answer is that we cannot. He introduces this notion in the epigraph to the essay, taken from Honoré de Balzac's story Sarrasine in which a male protagonist mistakes a castrato for a woman and falls in love with her. When, in the passage, the character dotes over her perceived womanliness, Barthes challenges his own readers to determine who is speaking, and about what. "Is it Balzac the author professing 'literary' ideas on femininity? Is it universal wisdom? Romantic psychology? … We can never know." Writing, "the destruction of every voice," defies adherence to a single interpretation or perspective. (Barthes returned to Sarrasine in his book S/Z, where he gave the story a rigorous close reading.)
Acknowledging the presence of this idea (or variations of it) in the works of previous writers, Barthes cited in his essay the poet Stéphane Mallarmé, who said that "it is language which speaks." He also recognized Marcel Proust as being "concerned with the task of inexorably blurring…the relation between the writer and his characters"; the Surrealist movement for employing the practice of "automatic writing" to express "what the head itself is unaware of"; and the field of linguistics as a discipline for "showing that the whole of enunciation is an empty process." Barthes' articulation of the death of the author is a radical and drastic recognition of this severing of authority and authorship. Instead of discovering a "single 'theological' meaning (the 'message' of the Author-God)," readers of text discover that writing, in reality, constitutes "a multi-dimensional space," which cannot be "deciphered," only "disentangled." "Refusing to assign a 'secret,' ultimate meaning" to text "liberates what may be called an anti-theological activity, an activity that is truly revolutionary since to refuse meaning is, in the end, to refuse God and his hypostases—reason, science, law."