An insight I gained from the reading was that time and culture are constantly changing the perspective of an image. Today, one will look at a piece of art in a way nobody looked at it before, and is viewed from a completely different perspective or point. This makes art so powerful because as the image ages, it's meaning may change with culture. The author relates this back to the perspective of a work of art being in the eye of the beholder.
Another insight I found from the text was the authors view on art of the past. He claims that art of the past no longer exists as it once did. Now, there is the authority of language of an image. I found this to be enlightening because I agree with the author when he says that this cuts off an entire class of people. In result, the entirety of art's past is a political issue in interpretation. I never looked at art's past from this perspective, and I found it an interesting approach to art's true meaning in modern day.
In conclusion, I believe that time, culture, and language have authority over art of the past, where the actual piece of art doesn't have a significant amount of authority.