Intertextuality

As an animator, intertextuality, did not appeal to me at all! Not only did it tell us that we can never create something original (even though I was already quite aware of that) but also the "death of the author", that we can't control how viewers receive things. This to me kind of conflicted with semiotics as that in a sense said that if you create the sign correctly you can influence how an individual will receive something. Such as a dark menacing looking character will generally be assumed to be an evil character by those viewing.

However at the same time I see why you can't control it as every person will interpret something differently from another person.

Overall intertextuality is not so much how viewers receive things but how things relate to one another and link together in people's minds. Using my previous example of red, some will link red to love, others to danger, maybe some even to blood. Intertextuality is how someone can take one thing and change it to make it into something else so as an animator I am constantly using intertextuality in my work as I research and find inspiration from other artists. However links are not always conscious or purposeful but sometimes can be unconscious links.

Intertextuality can also move which I found interesting such as jeans were designed and made for cowboys to use as they are tough material, however how people everywhere wear jeans. Intertextuality moved and no longer are jeans just for cowboys.

Although intertextuality is something I use during my course it did not particularly appeal to me very much even though I agree with it. :)