My "artwork" is a simple drawing of, believe it or not, art supplies. When I think of the Reader Response Theory, I think of it in the sense that the readers play the main role in uncovering the meaning in a literary work. Therefore, I think of the readers as paintbrushes, essential to the creation of a meaningful masterpiece. Each paintbrush (a.k.a. reader) is dipped in a different color to represent different emotions and experiences they bring to a work. However, the reader's ability to create meaning is confined by social construction, which I represented with the different colors of paint, and is bound by context, which I represented with the canvas. A paintbrush (reader) works within those boundaries of color (social constructs) and surface (context) with the text to create meaningful art.
Personally, I think that the Reader Response Theory makes way more sense than New Criticism, simply because it more accurately reflects the way people interpret literature in reality. No one is objective, so we shouldn't pretend we are simply because we"re analyzing literature. What are the possible consequences of analyzing literature in the style of Reader Response Theory? Are there other limitations to reader's interpretations besides social constructs, context, and verbal cues?