Does the creator or the audience determine the meaning of a work of art?

Im a philosophical Idealist so 100% the viewer. That viewer can be the artist themselves but the point stands - only observer can view art.

The process of creating art can be an art in itself and so does the meta societal situation of art culture but all of that still only matter in the pov of the viewer. So, the creation, creator or any context itself is not important for definiting art unless that's the meta subject.

Thats why AI generated art is fundamentally art because if the viewer doesn't know the context the effect of art upon their conciousness is exactly the same.

As you say, as everything is in the eye of the beholder. Some of the most successful artists are those who understand what their target audience want, and know where it overlaps with what they want to create, maximising passion and enjoyment on both sides.

As for AI art, you're absolutely right, and it's acceptance is also wholly to the observer. Cheap low effort stuff is going to be called slop, but where it's part of a broader process that enhances the prompter's work it will be considered successful.

Of course if something is culturally taboo (and AI art is risking this) art on the topic will be buried under down votes.

As most modern art as basically Rorschach cards on canvas, the interpretation (Illusion? Hallucination?) Is usually left to the viewer.

This is just "death of the author"

Ultimate IMO, the audience is free to determine the meaning of something, but they're not free to pronounce that the author intended such a meaning.

I don't remember who said it (so I'm likely butchering the phrase), but I've heard that any creative work exists in three forms: The mind of the author, the physical copy, and the mind of the audience.

For example, a book/story exists as the author intends, as the author writes, and as the reader interprets.

No one of the three is more "correct" than the other.

Art is subjective, so there is no one singular meaning.

If the creator intended a meaning for the piece, the creator.

If the creator made something just for the fun of it and came up with a meaning afterwards, still the creator.

The audience can't change that but what they can do is to not give a fuck about what the creator thinks so they are free give whatever meaning they want. Specially when the authors are no longer around to complain or explain what were their intentions.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_the_Author

https://www.languagehumanities.org/what-is-an-intentional-fallacy.htm

Among other things, when interpreting a work even what the author says their intention was isn't particularly relevant because they could, among many other things, be lying.

Both, and also neither. The creator can have their own vision, the collective crowd can have their own, but you as an individual can have an interpretation outside of either of those. And none are any more valid than the rest.

I disagree. The vision of the creator is the only one that can't be denied. The entire world can have their own but only one brought it to existence.

Meaning only exists as experienced by someone particular in a specific situation in time and space. The meaning-making processes in these situations assume a configuration of previous experiences, and probably conventions, languages, agreements on symbols and metaphors, technologies and so on. "The work" doesn't have any meaning outside of these situations (maybe it doesn't even exist, depending on how you define it). The author normally has no control over these situations and thus cannot, practically speaking, determine any meaning. But probably there is neither a "the audience" that can "determine" anything. The audience likely consists of several elements that create meanings in different ways across space and time.

Related issues: The author/creator/performer had an intention that they themselves get to decide. But this intention is not universally and necessarily the same as "the meaning of the work".

Practically speaking, the purpose of the audience is often to understand the intention of the author/creator.

Discussions of authorial intent may be useful and interesting: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorial_intent

I completely agree with you. A beautiful landscape is only beautiful when we perceive that, not because it's inherently beautiful. It's just a collection of mountains trees lakes whatever.

Yes.

It is not an either / or question.

Everyone, from the creator to the audience, determines the meaning for themselves.

The subjective nature of art is the only truth about art.

The human tendency to copy others behavior also translates into this; when people lack strong feelings about a piece of art, they are more likely to defer to other’s interpretation. This doesn’t mean they share the interpretation, rather that being agreeable was more important to them in the interaction than sharing an honest opinion.

There is no single meaning. Viewers of the art can find meaning, but it won't be canonical. I think the meaning the creator intended is important, but that isn't necessarily what the audience will understand from the work.

So I guess I'm saying that the audience determines the meaning.

There's a famous literary analysis essay about this, The Death of the Author, that argues for the latter. I happen to strongly believe this view.

I decide what a work of fiction means to me, and since it's a work of fiction there is no "higher" meaning than that. Other people can of course present their ideas about what it means, and if I like those ideas I'll adopt them into my own thoughts on the matter. The creator can be one of those "other people" but he gets no special role in the argument; he has to make his case just like anyone else and I feel free to say "no, that's dumb. I think it means something else."

The creator (ideally) knows what they wanted to say, their effectiveness in expressing it is skill-dependent. Those engaged with their content should be able to understand what the creator tried to say, which is also skill-dependent (if you're clever enough you can even understand what the creator wanted to say even if they don't communicate it properly/at all!). You can also 'take it' this or that way, even while knowing that the creator didn't mean it that way.

The audience, obviously. That's the majority of people who are going to experience it. Why would I watch anything if I can't have my own opinions on it?

Neither, I personally determine the meaning of art. Please feel welcome to ask about any pieces you are unsure of

I would like to understand the meaning of Goatse.
- “It’s worth it to push through the pain!”

Art is built on metaphor, which is an underlying connection between multiple meanings.

In semantic space, meanings are points while metaphors are vectors.

The creator has a say, but can only influence the audience, not overrule or veto their interpretation.

I argue for the audience for two reasons:

The subjective experience for every individual will be different with any form of art.
The audience is what determines if something is "art", so without the audience the creator isn't producing "art".

art as in drawings, or as in cinema? if its in cinema, yea audience has alot of influence over it.

If it's drawn art, yeah, same.

Everybody is welcome to their own meaning, but I think the creators intent should be the only "official" meaning. Just to keep it consistent for historical sake.

Yes

Before and while its being made its the artist, the second someone else experiences that art its not really the artists anymore

Only this guy decides https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpmI7w57MKw

Both imo. The creator can mean something but you can have something mean whatever you want to yourself.