I think generally you’re right, but I don’t think it’s right to call it anti-intellectual. I think often what our relationship to literature (or art) is even supposed to be is just poorly taught.
Like I know a lot of clever (but not university-trained) adults who think a piece of art is about This Thing The Artist Is Saying To Us and our role is to discover what This Thing is. Like I think that’s a very intuitive expectation if you’ve never really been taught otherwise.
Like I know a lot of clever (but not university-trained) adults who think a piece of art is about This Thing The Artist Is Saying To Us and our role is to discover what This Thing is.
Art routinely has a story behind it. Why an artist chooses a particular media or composition is as important as the final product. Things that look like shit but have a story can be more compelling than things that are expertly crafted without explanation or reference.
That isn’t to say you are beholden to the artist’s own interpretation. An artist may make a statement inadvertently or subconsciously. They may capture a moment with its own meaning that even they don’t comprehend. Or they might just be full of shit (Hemingway was famous for bullshitting audiences when they asked him about this or that allusion in his fiction).
But knowing the history of an artistic piece is vital to understanding it in context. And, at some point, that means engaging with the thoughts of its creators.
