LOL okay, you realise you just called my literal career "flawed, illogical and very self-indulgent," right? It's okay, I'm not offended, because I believe everyone has their right to an opinion, but I think you might be misinterpreting what AiD actually is? It's not a philosophy that says you can claim whatever you want under the umbrella of "all interpretations are valid yo!" It's that all interpretations that can be supported by the text are valid, and that includes authorial intent.
It doesn't actually teach students to be lazy, because what it does is accept the idea that literature is a form of dialogue between the author and the reader, and understands that this dialogue goes both ways. This means that while the author is bringing certain intentions and life experiences into their work, the reader is also doing the same thing, and AiD accepts that both sides of that discussion have equal weight, as long as they are supported by the text. Quite simply, what AiD does is teach students to understand that texts can have multiple readings, and to look at each of them before coming to your own conclusions. I don't see how that's lazy at all.
When I interact with a work of art, I'm trying to figure out what the artist is trying to communicate with me. I know a lot of artists, and I can tell you that each one of them would first ask their viewers, "What do you get out of it?" Art, in all forms, is about expression, and what is the point of expression without any sort of return? AiD teaching gives us that return, connects us all through dialogue, and that is the most interesting thing about Art in its entirety.
As the great Walt Whitman wrote, "The question, O me! so sad, recurring—What good amid these, O me, O life?/Answer./That you are here—that life exists and identity,/That the powerful play goes on, and you may contribute a verse.
I'd really rather contribute a verse, than simply look for meaning in those of others.
no subject
It doesn't actually teach students to be lazy, because what it does is accept the idea that literature is a form of dialogue between the author and the reader, and understands that this dialogue goes both ways. This means that while the author is bringing certain intentions and life experiences into their work, the reader is also doing the same thing, and AiD accepts that both sides of that discussion have equal weight, as long as they are supported by the text. Quite simply, what AiD does is teach students to understand that texts can have multiple readings, and to look at each of them before coming to your own conclusions. I don't see how that's lazy at all.
When I interact with a work of art, I'm trying to figure out what the artist is trying to communicate with me. I know a lot of artists, and I can tell you that each one of them would first ask their viewers, "What do you get out of it?" Art, in all forms, is about expression, and what is the point of expression without any sort of return? AiD teaching gives us that return, connects us all through dialogue, and that is the most interesting thing about Art in its entirety.
As the great Walt Whitman wrote, "The question, O me! so sad, recurring—What good amid these, O me, O life?/Answer./That you are here—that life exists and identity,/That the powerful play goes on, and you may contribute a verse.
I'd really rather contribute a verse, than simply look for meaning in those of others.