Too easy

I found that these readings caused conflicting impulses for me. On the one hand I agree with Eco and Barthes general trajectory that de-emphasizes the author. Likewise I agree with Burger that the development of 'art' over time has separated it from living, and created the myth of the artistic genius, and needs to be carefully looked at.

At the same time it seems wrong to just flat out say: there are any number of equally sound readings, and the authors intent doesn't enter into it. I think there are a couple of reasons for this:

In the context of art school - artists are often cornered into offering some justification for their work. When they offer whatever justification they feel will fend off the attack, and are then informed that the work itself doesn't actually work this way - the artist will retreat to something like "well, I think it's ok for different people to see it different ways..." It's a cop out. I don't blame the artist though, I blame the institution, and the underlying premise that leads to this situation.

The other reason I feel bothered by it is just simply what discourse is about. If I state some observation that I want to communicate to you, I have a pretty clear intent. If you radically re-position what I've said without interest for my intent, and then respond from that position - our discussion pretty much is over.