Text Commentary: The Story It Tells

The article was lengthy and somewhat repetitive, which is going to happen when the use of structuralist thinking is involved. All the time pointing out that the artist is just as important to the meaning of the work as the work itself. Of course, this can be true but it is not always the case. What is more clearly evident is the attempt of foregrounding the individual artist by the artist in modern art(starting at least by Cezanne) . Essentially, there is a struggle for the artist to show that he is relevant to today's society. If you believe the view that visual art is a form of language, which is the view of the article, then the belief that the viewer could interpret the work using extension and nullify the meaning the artist intended or rather imbued be happenstance is also valid. So, the informational intention of the artist could in fact be irrelevant, because the viewer is going to create his own meaning. The artists that created so many works that are today anonymous(i.e. Greek, Egyptian, MesoAmerican) have no bearing on the interpretation of the meaning. That being said, the reason the unknown artists having no effect on meaning is the lack of information about the artist themselves. This lack of knowledge simply creates a block on the amount of extension the viewer can institute.

The more the viewer believes he knows the more interpretations the viewer can make. Lack of knowledge about the artist can only create a bottleneck in the interpretation and the knowledge of the artist can only increase interpretations.