The first one is, most broadly, where I come from, called positivism. Primarily associated with the 19th century, this approach to literature is external (like the more recent feminist theory, new historicism, post-colonial theory...), contextual, and it includes, as you nicely described them, biographism (examining the author's life and how it would've affected the text), historicism (the wider historical causes that affected the text), and psychologism (focusing on author's psychology - this would, for example, discuss how Kafka's bad relationship with his father negatively affected his view of any authority, which was then materialized in the writing of The Trial). This approach has been criticized a lot and is not well-regarded anymore, but stuff like New Historicism is, since it seeks a much more nuanced analysis (not simply treating a text as a consequence of external factors).

The polar opposite of this would be an internal approach to the text, textual and decontextualized approach. The biography of the author, including their intended message, is to be ignored, and the text should be left to produce its own meaning. The schools associated with this are usually those from the first half of the 20th century - Russian formalism (the study of form placed above the study of "content"), American New Criticism (Wimsatt's and Beardsley's essay The Intentional Fallacy is probably its most popular text, "close reading" its best known concept), structuralism (analyzing the structure of a text, often with tools provided by linguistics), and post-structuralism (Roland Barthes - The Death of the Author).

What you describe is perhaps not quite the same as these internal approaches, since you