The New York Times has a piece running on an ”academic” symposium that took place recently on Black Metal Theory. I wasn’t going to post about this because people more engaged than myself  will no doubt address it.

It does however kick the dirt off an issue that consistently irks me: The imposition of meaning on art irregardless of the artists intent.

People take their own personal impressions away from a piece of art or literature, music or film. Metaphor, allegory and archetypes all speak beyond the concrete elements of a work. That’s the power of art, that’s good.

When institutions, critics and theorists start declaring meaning and intent without the input of the artist it is pure bluster. Academia can create a consensus on the meaning of a piece of art and not take the artists intent into consideration. It’s a speculative house of cards.

There are those that believe once the art falls from the nest and into the public view the artist becomes irrelevant.  However, when you are documenting a piece of art for the ages and making declarations about its soul, it’s irresponsible and dishonest to ignore the intentions behind it.

~ by the eulogist on December 16, 2009.

Posted in diatribe
Tags: academia, art, black metal, Hideous Gnosis, intent, philosophy, theory, turtlenecks