From Interpretation and Rationalisation we can derive how authorship is (in the majority of cases), not a totalitarian manifestation of control over intentional meaning.
Despite full autonomy given to the practitioner and the practice, disciplinarian questions arise from the point of view from which each one of us (more or less the layman), relates to the creation of a work.
Additionally, a work and the opus must integrate a notion of a path in a timeline that conjuncts the experience from a critique that originated from the beaux arts within other fields of creation and production (architecture, design, literature, photography, et cet.).
Summarising, the exterior observations in the direction of the creator-creation made with the intention of producing additional content (a new work) is a process of criticism, where control over the expected outcome is not an obvious result from both the author and the critical observer revealing the possibility of a perpetual cycle.
From this silogistisc analysis we can infer that “author” and “critic” can rely partially on heuristic mechanisms (and even settle creation in sets of imperfect tools as perception, opinion and inference on) to pursue their ability to produce knowledge, but always from the elemental work-opus tandem.
As an author, one produces with intention, and from that act we cannot avoid to reduce how he conditions the observer from his sociocultural contexts of space-time. As a critic, the built scenario is an exasperated analytical framework that can either deduce or induce meaning from one’s contemporary condition. Both rely on the exquisite balance of a recognisable algorithmic approach that finds disciplinary echo in the discomfort of different and even contradicting points of view.
Almost narcissistically, both agents of creation (author and critic) imply in their actions how their notion of the field is prevalent to the l’ouvre (d’art). Paradoxically, they both battle on how to define the limits on which each one has precedence over the definite framework of the creation.
Should there be any boundaries whatsoever? If the artists assume unintended meaning can the critic originate new interpretations and rationalisations of the ouvre? Where are we setting the limit for authorship, co-authorship, co-creation, collaboration and curation?
As an author I don’t recognise unintended meaning as my creation: I simply rely on my limitations to create, both algorithmically and heuristically, and within the field of my interest. Whatever others decide on what is the meaning of my creation is their own creation, entirely dependent on their observation, perception and critique. This positioning apparatus is in itself autonomous from the author, as it defies authorship from new creations, without plagiarism. Perhaps even perception can be a part of that construction, when seen as a correction of the creative framework we make individually, as consumers of reality.
This demonstrates disciplinary autonomy.
Even from the umbilical dependency of the author, the authority of the field originates from the precise definition of canonical arguments from which we rely on to derive onto new canonical cycles of conformation. The critic is the providence of this argument as he influences from direct participation the mechanisms of creation that define and lubricate how the cycles evolve and progress the arguments forward into eras of creation and systematic recourrence for humanistic topics.
From this we can state that totalistic control is delusional. Interpretation is key. Rationalisation is just one of many entry point exercises. A work can be dependent on unexpected meaning. Opus is labour and a period of time. Collaboration is not only a cumulative process. Deduction can become an authorial practice.
In the end some of us are authors, and we are all creators, as we relate context with skills and culture.
Multidisciplinarly!