I disagree with the view that a creation becomes larger than the creator and in some way property of the audience. My conviction is that we need to read the work in the context of the time it was created in, and the creator's intent in the context of the time of creating the work. Only then are we free from the contamination of the author's intent with a reading influenced by the noise of the current day.
Good point, AwesomeButton, good point... HOWEVER... you already conceded that the intent should be calculated into the analysis, so the work itself is not sufficient. I kind of agree with that. I think there are at least two types of analyses distinguished by purpose: one is oriented towards getting some insight from the work itself, and the other is meant to compare, and situate it among relevant works of culture. For the first one, intent is completely irrelevant, so is the author. Nietzsche might have been a weakling, but it does not disprove the validity of the idea of the Overman. The second one is what is usually done these days, and that is by definition comparative, it requires context and an overall understanding of culture and ideas of the period. Here, some new value is achieved not by digging deeper into the text, but by taking a wider look, and then synthesizing something
thanks to the context. With that in mind you'll surely see that this type of analysis, when it includes not only the
context at the time of creating the work, but also reception, and continued redesign, both by the community and by the author herself(!), is simply superior to the one that voluntarily blinds itself to those.
EDIT: what I'm getting at is that for the kind of overview that various 'cultural influencers' are doing, it makes more sense to be context sensitive and broad in that regard, rather than the opposite.