Nancy Gish wrote:
> So it still seems to me just a semantic argument. It depends what is
> meant by being the "author." And that is not simple or universally
> agreed on. [clip]
I'm not too familiar with the history of film criticism & theory, but I
believe the French critics came up with a theory of the _auteur_
(director) as _the_ artist of a film, but that it's fairly widely
acknowledged now that there is no one directing will in a film, that it
is truly a collective authorship. I would assume this was the case with
much, perhaps most, architecture in the past, and that in practice many
buildings today (even if they are 'signed' by one architect) are better
seen as collective enterprises. Some buildings exist _only_ in the
architect's drawing and were never intended to be built. If they were
built, those plans would probably be changed in the process, and that
would not be solely on the basis of the architect's 'vision.'
And some 18th c. music, I believe, was a collaboration of composer and
performer, since certain parts of the composition were up to the
performer to flesh out.
So "author" is ceratinly not a universally agreed on or simple concept.