[kid cue]

yeah--i'm not against different approaches in principle, any absolute rule about how to look at art is a bad one ... i guess i'm using a lot of words to say that "art" means someone makes this thing (physical or not...) and that thing becomes its own thing, with its own properties, and it's pointless to get hung up on other ideas about the artist as an artist, or a person, etc. the artwork isn't defined solely by the intentions or desires of the artist, because the rest of us are free to look at it our way.

i think a lot of things, like "Trapped in the Closet" or whatever, can be more interesting when you consider them in terms of biography. but i still think that's somewhat separate from the artwork as a work of art. like i think it's interesting that no one cared about Van Gogh and he was tormented and cut off his ear or whatever, but it still doesn't make his paintings very interesting paintings IMO. also, if R. Kelly made his own commentary track for the song, i'd argue that that's part of the artwork as well, as part of his process of self-reflexively riffing on his media persona.

also, the idea of both R. Kelly's public persona, along with an official R. Kelly self-commentary track, is totally as much a creative fabrication as his actual songs. rather than provide real, objective criteria (straight from the real artist) for interpreting his music, i'd argue that these "biographical" aspects (of our idea of the person R. Kelly) add more layers to the work itself.