>>2156805But those are things that happen wholly in the heads of the audiences, the thoughs you chose to clothe it in have NO relation to the work itself.
The author's do, because the work is a deliberate reflection of them. Sure there's no perfect copy, but that's imperfect execution, human limitations and last but not least different working techniques not that "the person doesn't know/have the right to say anything more about it than anyone else".
It's NOT disjoint. Works of art are not abstract, independent untouchable things in some platonic cave, nor were they just "noticed" the way natural laws are - they came into existance *somehow*., they came from some*where*.
Replying is something else than twisting someone's words in their mouths. How can you know what you're replying to if you didn't try your best (modulo the noise any transmission is bound to have) to hear them out, nor even CARE what they're saying?
You're always free to say something sux or make a better work.
By that logic, no human would have the right to claim they ever "did" anything.
