Korsmeyer, pp 324-332 and 338-344 (Foucault and Baxandall),

Foucault discusses the relationship between the artist and their work, when the get authorship. He talks about "analyzing the work through its structure, it's intrinsic form, and the play of its internal relationships." He asks questions like "what is a work?" and "Of what elements is it composed?" He then dicusses once an artist becomes an author, we still have to ask the questions about his work, pertaining to whether it really is his work or not, like where did it come from. He uses Nietzshe's works as examples and how everything he publishes is Nietzshe's work.

Baxandall discusses the backgrounds of works themselves. He poses questions like when, why and how was it made? and why is it understood as art? He talks about how culture is a big part of our understanding. How we grew up and the cultures we were experienced to define how we view things. I feel like he is saying that sometimes when you view a piece of art, you have to be able to know the background, culturally and the background of the artist in order to properly view the piece. I agree and disagree with this. If you know the background, yes, it might help you understand why the Baptism of Christ was painted the way it was. However, If you go to a piece of art without knowing anything it allows you to view it how you would like to interpret it. Which I think is a valuable part of art that sometimes is not understood. When you view a piece of art sometimes it is nice to view it as you see it and not view it through the eyes of the "background" or what have you.