On this blog, we will explore several major aesthetic theories from realism to postmodernism and engage in a dialogue about the very nature of art. Key contemporary artists will be explored in depth as each theory is unpacked and examined.
Each response should be between 150-250 words in length. These are due on the date listed at the top of each entry,
Saturday, August 27, 2011
Interpreting Art
Do you agree with Barrett's principles of interpretation? Why or why not? How do these principles seek to give viewers a more enriching experience with art?
Due Monday aug 29th at 12 noon.
I agree with Barrett’s principles of interpretation. Some interpretation might be stronger than another but since interpretation can be both subjective and objective there is no such thing as right or wrong interpretation. As long as one can provide enough explanation for their interpretation it is a valid one. I also agree with Barrett that book editor and writer also impact the way people interpret an artwork especially when readers only see the work through reproduction. I think Barrett did a very nice job at laying out the fundamental aspects and nature of art interpretation. He also chooses a very good piece of work to use as an example as it provides enough ambiguity to readers without background knowledge on art to challenge themselves with a work that they don’t recognize its content right away. I think Barrett’s principles will help the reader to understand more about the nature and process of art interpretation and encourage them not to be afraid to interpret a more challenging artwork. When one knows how to interpret a work of art one will enjoy more than just the aesthetic quality of the work but also the philosophy that the artist put into the work, thus enriching the overall viewing experience.
I think that Barrett’s order of analysis allows for the greatest appreciation of a piece of art. His method allows for individual interpretation while also facilitating a larger understanding and appreciation of a work through the referencing of alternate ideas. By starting his exploration with his own thoughts, looking at the formal elements of the work and using his own knowledge and experience he is able to come to his own personal conclusions about what the work means for him. However, he does not limit himself to his own views but broadens his scope by looking to others for further insight. Firstly, by discovering the artist’s intent after his own interpretation, his ideas are not corrupted by what the artist was aiming to do. However, by later researching Magritte’s thought process behind the work, Barratt can look back and reassess his initial ideas and perhaps expand upon them. Barratt’s open-mindedness to other interpreters spanning from respected art critics to children and teenagers emphasizes the idea that there is no such thing as a wrong interpretation. The more people he heard from the broader his experience with the work of art. Each person finds different meaning from Magritte’s work because we naturally look back to our personal life and draw connections between the artist’s expression and our own experiences. By taking this broad scope of ideas he can bring them together to form his own cohesive conclusions.
I believe in most of what Barrett's interpretation method. I enjoy that he started off with telling his audience about personal preference. It is, afterall, only worth interpreting a piece of art work only if it intrigues you, whether from horrible dislike or from utter love for the work. Disdain will not make for a good interpretation. As Barrett teaches us, 'Is it worthy of your time?' He preaches in the beginning of his lesson to identify the literal aspects first. I agree with Barrett that there is no use in going straight to the haughty, superfluous language first. To impress yourself or your audience with an interpretation, state the obvious first and then work deeper into your own opinions. As in all writing, it is important to give your reading audience sufficient knowledge about the piece as if they have never seen what you are interpreting. What I disagree with Barrett on is his steadfast opinion that to interpreting the art, you must be knowledgeable of the artists collections and body of work. Sure, a well respected and practiced interpreter will have a well rounded education of the artist and if not, will seek it, but for someone, say, a student such as myself, the body of artworks throughout an artists lifetime is not always available at the ready. For example, when the class was asked to interpret Laylah Ali's 'Greenhead' painting, the students had no prior exposure to her work. It is sometimes corrupting to an interpretation to have the artists entire body of works clouding your head. Lastly, Barrett's line which reads " Meaningful interpretations are both personal and communal" meaning to me that sometimes not all of what you see will be accepted by another viewer, meaning it is a personal analysis that, and that there are translations of art that you can not tolerate in your own evaluation.
I believe that Barrett’s method of interpretation works well on both a basic as well as specific level, and allows for the viewer to appreciate and interpret the work of art, regardless of their experience in the field. He begins by analyzing the content of the work, noting the literal features, the setting, and other stylistic aspects. By starting this way, Barrett makes the work accessible to all viewers; no background knowledge is necessary to simply state what you see. He continues by analyzing the work and how it fits into the artist’s overall repertoire, a step that is useful for detailed analysis, but not necessary for an inexperienced viewer. He stresses that all viewers, from 4th graders to philosophers, can take their own experiences and thoughts and apply them to the work to form their own interpretations. Neither one is inherently better, as long as your interpretation of the work furthers your knowledge about the work and yourself, and satisfies your curiosity. Barrett then delves more deeply into the philosophical meanings behind the work, as well as the artist’s intent when creating the piece. What appeals to me about his method of interpretation is how he does not limit his analysis to simply agree with the artist’s intent for the piece, he forms his own conclusions while taking into account the background of the artist and their inspirations. His method of art interpretation emphasizes the role of the individual viewer in drawing their own conclusions about the work, as well as how these views fit together with the larger community of interpretations.
Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed reading Barrett's flow of thoughts in his attempt to properly dissect and interpret Magritte's piece, though I do not agree with his principles entirely. I do believe, however, that there must be some hierarchy of thought when reviewing a piece and must appropriately give credit to Barrett on his ability to convey this, particularly when he began by recognizing only the initial visual facts & stating only what physically exists present on the canvas. Indicating the subject matter, pure of assumptions, allows one to view the piece first objectively before diluting the image with further interpretations. Where I begin to disagree with Barrett is the point in which he places such extreme emphasis on the need for context; I feel that, as he went on to explain the interpretations of scholars and the context of the breadth of Magritte's work that he began to make the entire process far more intellectual than it needs to be. Barrett, in the end, in facts contradicts the importance of all his prior research on Magritte and the Surrealist Manifesto & movement where he collects the interpretations of the far less educated and comes to realize that they share more or less similar interpretations. This is not to say that understanding the basic principles that moved an artist or period is unimportant, as it can most certainly lend in a better understanding, but that Barrett's emphasis on putting exact context on each individual aspect of the painting and on Magritte exhausts the mind more than necessary. To me, the interpretation of art is far more universal and emotional than it is intellectual, which is exemplified in the fact that even fourth graders could come to recognize similar meanings and feelings to Magritte's work as did the scholars.
First breaking down the piece into the exact subject matter allows the viewer to really take in everything that is happening in a composition and to be able to filter between what is actually going on and what we assume is going on in a piece. To then allow the interpretations to flow in, you can distinguish the emotional impact of a piece, and attempt to fit together the different symbols incrypted in the artwork.
For the most part, I do agree with the principles of interpretation that Barrett is presenting. The ideas he conveys appear to fall nicely into step with what I have been taught for the majority of my time at Rollins, which would be when dealing with a piece of art, to look at the what, why, and how. When first approaching an artwork, it seems practical to start with what is immediately present (in the piece and in one’s mind). Then thoughts and interpretations can branch out from there, to encompass more specific and astute information and understanding (the context of the piece or the background of the artist). Roxanne made a nice point about how Barrett seemed to be “open-minded” concerning other people’s interpretations, which I thought was a good point. Open-mindedness is a positive quality to cultivate, since the more one takes in, the more interesting and well colored one’s own interpretation will be. A quotation that really jumped out at me in the reading was when Barrett quoted Hume regarding how sentiments or tastes in relation to art can be compared to sentiments are taste in relation to food. “No sentiment represents what is really in the object. It only marks a certain… relation between the object and organs or faculties of the mind.” So, if someone tastes more bitterness in a dish than another person, that fact says something about those people’s taste buds. And if someone gets a different meaning from a work of art than another person, that fact says something about those people’s minds. Art, in that way, is a great tool for self-reflection. Nifty!
I definitely agree with Barrett's principles of interpretation. He bases everything on having a complete background knowledge of the artist. However I like that he makes sure to gain that knowledge after initially looking at the work so as to get an opinion before. In the beginning of the article he mentions that an apple could be interpreted differently in Belgium than in North America. This stuck with me because as I stated in my previous blog post I believe that art will be interpreted and judged vastly differently based on it's location. I also think it's important that later on in the article he talks about reading more about Magritte therefore the viewer can understand more of what he was thinking when painting. Another point to mention is the idea that reading other people's take on the painting may take away from the viewer's own opinion. I do feel that this could happen however reading someone's opinion on any painting could help the viewer notice certain things in future paintings. I may not notice things someone else does and once those have been pointed out to me I will notice them in future paintings. Overall I agreed completely with the article.
Overall I do agree with Barrett’s priciples of interpretation, the first line that stuck with me from this reading was “to interpret a work of art is to make it meaningful.” This theory sits well with me because there are times when I have to personally interpret a piece of art and I tend to instantly find traits or characteristics that are visually pleasing and stimulating. Barrett introduces the notion that questions are formed when looking at a work of art and choices are to be made. Choices are made on personal preferences- meaning we get to interpret what we want to focus on. One main question that arises is “ do I even want to interpret this painting?” Sometimes we are forced to go through and dissect an artwork, when the time spent may not even be necessary. He next pointed out steps in which viewers can use when interpreting a work of art. When engaging with a work of art, anyone can first identify the literal aspects of a work- such as the who, what, how and why. Barrett uses Magritte as an example of how to interpret art, going through different pieces of his work to serve as examples of how viewers interpret them. He claims that interpreters are attentive to unity and diversity in multiple works by the same artist. Barrett’s method of art interpretation emphasizes the role of the individual viewer by drawing their own conclusions about the work, as well as how these views fit together with the larger community of interpretations.
I found Barrett’s principles of interpreting art to be a great tool to aid in the overall appreciation of a work of art. The thing with tools is that you are not always going to need to use all of them at once. While I agree that “to interpret a work of art is to make it meaningful”, I’m not sure that every work of art that we look at will require the in depth analysis that Barrett insists upon. It would seem that there are times when history need not play a role in the interpretation of the present. That said, I definitely believe that there are times when to know more is to truly have found an appreciation for the subject in question. I think it is inspiring the way Barrett embraces not only his own interpretation of the work of art but the way he has included even young students. Using those out of the art field to add their own interpretation reinforces the importance of your own personal thoughts and feeling when questioning a piece of art. By giving the viewer the confidence to not discredit their own critical analysis this can help them to learn about themselves as much as the art that they are looking at
In a way I do like Barrett's discussion on what art really is, according to some artisans and aesthetcians. It seems like one of the biggest hang up that some of these people have is the fact that they either accept contemporary art or not. Some claim art to be an "open concept", while others claim that there should be a definitive subject and from a certain point of view. Still others talk about how one should base whether a new piece of artwork is "good" if it follows guidelines set up by previous pieces.
I personally believe that some adherence to the fundamental principals of art is key in distinguishing actual art from a 4 year old's scribbling. However we do need folks like Marcel Duchamp to look at art as an open interpretation and push the boundaries of what art is, lest it become immensely stale and uninteresting. So, in all actuality we need both the art purists and the art contemporaries to both push the boundaries and to keep things somewhat in check.
(This is Clark Hall, I forgot my password to my last blogger account, so I had to use another.)
I believe that Barrett uses a good process in order to interpret a work of art. I agree with Barrett’s principles as he has a very holistic approach. For example, he looks at the artist’s life, his whole range of paintings, the themes he has been concerned with throughout the his/her career, the objects that have been appearing in the work of art, and how these might be symbols that lead to other conclusions, or more answers that might complicate things more. Also, as shown from the reading, he Barrett also looks at what other people have said about an artist or actual art works in order to reach a better interpretation. Through reading abut these principles, viewers are able to better explain and articulate why artists go the way they go, and what they want to tell the viewer through their work. However, I believe that art can be viewed in any way people feel they should look at it, and let the feelings that a piece of art evokes, explain what it could possibly mean.
Wrong interpretation? Wrong. Barret’s strongest point is that you cannot be incorrect when viewing art because it is in fact how it makes you feel. You hopefully will delve further to find the artist’s intent and expand your thought and understanding of the artist or artwork. The better interpreters are the one’s who are more knowledgeable. Yes, we as studio art and art history majors are able to look at a piece with no prior background information. We are able to comment on our initial feelings and aesthetic qualities of the piece and possibly identify the origin, but the entire meaning of a good piece of art is generally not grasped all at once without more knowledge. For example, as a class we viewed Laylah Ali’s painting of the “Greenheads” and were able to make many observations about it, but I am still unable to understand her intent without a deeper research into her thought process. While our own thoughts of the painting without Ali’s influence are very important, I believe that a good art viewer should never stop there. They should further research, understand, and might not always agree with the artist’s intent as well as other interpreters opinions.
I don't know about agreeing or disagreeing with Barrett's process (to each their own, right?), but I do LIKE the way his goes about interpreting the work. I think that he gives a very good step by step way of looking at a work of art without making the steps seem tedious. Mostly I like the depth he shows within each step. Just when you think you know enough about the culture or significance of the apple being green you find another question or open ended "answer". He shows very well how an artist's body of work reveals details about a singular work of art. Also, the fact that he looks at other interpretations I found, well for lack of a better word, enlightening. This was not something I have ever considered doing as a part of my own process, but when I thought about it doing so makes total sense. Our opinions can be informed or influenced by others so why not see what else is out there being said about the work you are interpreting? Overall, I would say his resounding message is KEEP LOOKING. whether this looking be through research or just plain staring at the art. Personally, I do think this enriches a viewers experience of the art. By looking they will want to find out more about the art and then maybe they are then buying art books and/or going to more museums and/or then realizing how important art is to culture. And then maybe they tell a friend, who tells a friend, well you get the idea and I am being to run off to another topic... So in summary I like how Barrett's process challenges the viewer to LOOK and THINK and QUESTION.
I do agree with Barrett’s principles of interpretation. One principle I found especially interesting was “Interpretations of artworks need not be limited to what the artist intended in making those artworks”(Barrett14). It is okay to not be limited by the intentions of an artist because in my opinion, artists can do things in their work that they do not even realize they are doing until someone else takes a second look. Pieces of art create different emotions in different viewers so there cannot possibly be only one correct interpretation, therefore I think that it is a good thing to look outside of the artist’s intentions. After all, if it were up to Margritte, his work would not have been interpreted at all. This enriches a viewer’s experience by allowing them to think for themselves and not be restricted to accepting what the artist wants their work to mean. It is important to have the intentions of the artist in mind however because they can provide powerful insight into the meaning of a work. Barrett’s principles seek to give viewers a more enriching experience with art by allowing every viewer to interpret what they see. Anyone can look at a piece of art, therefore they should be able to interpret what the works mean to them and reflect on their “new insights into the world” (Barrett 37).
I really enjoyed this article. Barrett’s ideas of interpretation allow for anyone and everyone to have a valid interpretation of art; there is no such thing as a wrong reading of a painting, and everyone’s reading has value. Barrett offered us his way of interpreting art. He began by simple listing what he saw, then he looked at Magritte’s history, his other art, and then referred to other critics’ writings on the subject. Despite his interest in creating a thorough analysis, he was very open to listening to other’s interpretations, even those of nine year olds. His philosophy on this matter is very contemporary: there is no hierarchy or exact iconography that must be read by someone highly educated. Instead, everyone has access to this work, and can take something valuable from the experience. One point of Barrett’s I particularly appreciated was that people can read more into a work than what the artist intended, and that people should read into the works. He also wrote about how much critics can influence the public’s ideas of art, and the responsibility inherent in the position, which I also believe is an especially important point.
I agree with Barrett’s principles of interpretation. Some interpretation might be stronger than another but since interpretation can be both subjective and objective there is no such thing as right or wrong interpretation. As long as one can provide enough explanation for their interpretation it is a valid one. I also agree with Barrett that book editor and writer also impact the way people interpret an artwork especially when readers only see the work through reproduction. I think Barrett did a very nice job at laying out the fundamental aspects and nature of art interpretation. He also chooses a very good piece of work to use as an example as it provides enough ambiguity to readers without background knowledge on art to challenge themselves with a work that they don’t recognize its content right away. I think Barrett’s principles will help the reader to understand more about the nature and process of art interpretation and encourage them not to be afraid to interpret a more challenging artwork. When one knows how to interpret a work of art one will enjoy more than just the aesthetic quality of the work but also the philosophy that the artist put into the work, thus enriching the overall viewing experience.
ReplyDeleteI think that Barrett’s order of analysis allows for the greatest appreciation of a piece of art. His method allows for individual interpretation while also facilitating a larger understanding and appreciation of a work through the referencing of alternate ideas. By starting his exploration with his own thoughts, looking at the formal elements of the work and using his own knowledge and experience he is able to come to his own personal conclusions about what the work means for him. However, he does not limit himself to his own views but broadens his scope by looking to others for further insight. Firstly, by discovering the artist’s intent after his own interpretation, his ideas are not corrupted by what the artist was aiming to do. However, by later researching Magritte’s thought process behind the work, Barratt can look back and reassess his initial ideas and perhaps expand upon them. Barratt’s open-mindedness to other interpreters spanning from respected art critics to children and teenagers emphasizes the idea that there is no such thing as a wrong interpretation. The more people he heard from the broader his experience with the work of art. Each person finds different meaning from Magritte’s work because we naturally look back to our personal life and draw connections between the artist’s expression and our own experiences. By taking this broad scope of ideas he can bring them together to form his own cohesive conclusions.
ReplyDeleteI believe in most of what Barrett's interpretation method. I enjoy that he started off with telling his audience about personal preference. It is, afterall, only worth interpreting a piece of art work only if it intrigues you, whether from horrible dislike or from utter love for the work. Disdain will not make for a good interpretation. As Barrett teaches us, 'Is it worthy of your time?' He preaches in the beginning of his lesson to identify the literal aspects first. I agree with Barrett that there is no use in going straight to the haughty, superfluous language first. To impress yourself or your audience with an interpretation, state the obvious first and then work deeper into your own opinions. As in all writing, it is important to give your reading audience sufficient knowledge about the piece as if they have never seen what you are interpreting. What I disagree with Barrett on is his steadfast opinion that to interpreting the art, you must be knowledgeable of the artists collections and body of work. Sure, a well respected and practiced interpreter will have a well rounded education of the artist and if not, will seek it, but for someone, say, a student such as myself, the body of artworks throughout an artists lifetime is not always available at the ready. For example, when the class was asked to interpret Laylah Ali's 'Greenhead' painting, the students had no prior exposure to her work. It is sometimes corrupting to an interpretation to have the artists entire body of works clouding your head. Lastly, Barrett's line which reads " Meaningful interpretations are both personal and communal" meaning to me that sometimes not all of what you see will be accepted by another viewer, meaning it is a personal analysis that, and that there are translations of art that you can not tolerate in your own evaluation.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Barrett’s method of interpretation works well on both a basic as well as specific level, and allows for the viewer to appreciate and interpret the work of art, regardless of their experience in the field. He begins by analyzing the content of the work, noting the literal features, the setting, and other stylistic aspects. By starting this way, Barrett makes the work accessible to all viewers; no background knowledge is necessary to simply state what you see. He continues by analyzing the work and how it fits into the artist’s overall repertoire, a step that is useful for detailed analysis, but not necessary for an inexperienced viewer. He stresses that all viewers, from 4th graders to philosophers, can take their own experiences and thoughts and apply them to the work to form their own interpretations. Neither one is inherently better, as long as your interpretation of the work furthers your knowledge about the work and yourself, and satisfies your curiosity. Barrett then delves more deeply into the philosophical meanings behind the work, as well as the artist’s intent when creating the piece. What appeals to me about his method of interpretation is how he does not limit his analysis to simply agree with the artist’s intent for the piece, he forms his own conclusions while taking into account the background of the artist and their inspirations. His method of art interpretation emphasizes the role of the individual viewer in drawing their own conclusions about the work, as well as how these views fit together with the larger community of interpretations.
ReplyDeleteOverall, I thoroughly enjoyed reading Barrett's flow of thoughts in his attempt to properly dissect and interpret Magritte's piece, though I do not agree with his principles entirely. I do believe, however, that there must be some hierarchy of thought when reviewing a piece and must appropriately give credit to Barrett on his ability to convey this, particularly when he began by recognizing only the initial visual facts & stating only what physically exists present on the canvas. Indicating the subject matter, pure of assumptions, allows one to view the piece first objectively before diluting the image with further interpretations. Where I begin to disagree with Barrett is the point in which he places such extreme emphasis on the need for context; I feel that, as he went on to explain the interpretations of scholars and the context of the breadth of Magritte's work that he began to make the entire process far more intellectual than it needs to be. Barrett, in the end, in facts contradicts the importance of all his prior research on Magritte and the Surrealist Manifesto & movement where he collects the interpretations of the far less educated and comes to realize that they share more or less similar interpretations. This is not to say that understanding the basic principles that moved an artist or period is unimportant, as it can most certainly lend in a better understanding, but that Barrett's emphasis on putting exact context on each individual aspect of the painting and on Magritte exhausts the mind more than necessary. To me, the interpretation of art is far more universal and emotional than it is intellectual, which is exemplified in the fact that even fourth graders could come to recognize similar meanings and feelings to Magritte's work as did the scholars.
ReplyDeleteFirst breaking down the piece into the exact subject matter allows the viewer to really take in everything that is happening in a composition and to be able to filter between what is actually going on and what we assume is going on in a piece. To then allow the interpretations to flow in, you can distinguish the emotional impact of a piece, and attempt to fit together the different symbols incrypted in the artwork.
For the most part, I do agree with the principles of interpretation that Barrett is presenting. The ideas he conveys appear to fall nicely into step with what I have been taught for the majority of my time at Rollins, which would be when dealing with a piece of art, to look at the what, why, and how. When first approaching an artwork, it seems practical to start with what is immediately present (in the piece and in one’s mind). Then thoughts and interpretations can branch out from there, to encompass more specific and astute information and understanding (the context of the piece or the background of the artist). Roxanne made a nice point about how Barrett seemed to be “open-minded” concerning other people’s interpretations, which I thought was a good point. Open-mindedness is a positive quality to cultivate, since the more one takes in, the more interesting and well colored one’s own interpretation will be. A quotation that really jumped out at me in the reading was when Barrett quoted Hume regarding how sentiments or tastes in relation to art can be compared to sentiments are taste in relation to food. “No sentiment represents what is really in the object. It only marks a certain… relation between the object and organs or faculties of the mind.” So, if someone tastes more bitterness in a dish than another person, that fact says something about those people’s taste buds. And if someone gets a different meaning from a work of art than another person, that fact says something about those people’s minds. Art, in that way, is a great tool for self-reflection. Nifty!
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with Barrett's principles of interpretation. He bases everything on having a complete background knowledge of the artist. However I like that he makes sure to gain that knowledge after initially looking at the work so as to get an opinion before. In the beginning of the article he mentions that an apple could be interpreted differently in Belgium than in North America. This stuck with me because as I stated in my previous blog post I believe that art will be interpreted and judged vastly differently based on it's location. I also think it's important that later on in the article he talks about reading more about Magritte therefore the viewer can understand more of what he was thinking when painting. Another point to mention is the idea that reading other people's take on the painting may take away from the viewer's own opinion. I do feel that this could happen however reading someone's opinion on any painting could help the viewer notice certain things in future paintings. I may not notice things someone else does and once those have been pointed out to me I will notice them in future paintings. Overall I agreed completely with the article.
ReplyDeleteOverall I do agree with Barrett’s priciples of interpretation, the first line that stuck with me from this reading was “to interpret a work of art is to make it meaningful.” This theory sits well with me because there are times when I have to personally interpret a piece of art and I tend to instantly find traits or characteristics that are visually pleasing and stimulating. Barrett introduces the notion that questions are formed when looking at a work of art and choices are to be made. Choices are made on personal preferences- meaning we get to interpret what we want to focus on. One main question that arises is “ do I even want to interpret this painting?” Sometimes we are forced to go through and dissect an artwork, when the time spent may not even be necessary. He next pointed out steps in which viewers can use when interpreting a work of art. When engaging with a work of art, anyone can first identify the literal aspects of a work- such as the who, what, how and why. Barrett uses Magritte as an example of how to interpret art, going through different pieces of his work to serve as examples of how viewers interpret them. He claims that interpreters are attentive to unity and diversity in multiple works by the same artist. Barrett’s method of art interpretation emphasizes the role of the individual viewer by drawing their own conclusions about the work, as well as how these views fit together with the larger community of interpretations.
ReplyDeleteI found Barrett’s principles of interpreting art to be a great tool to aid in the overall appreciation of a work of art. The thing with tools is that you are not always going to need to use all of them at once. While I agree that “to interpret a work of art is to make it meaningful”, I’m not sure that every work of art that we look at will require the in depth analysis that Barrett insists upon. It would seem that there are times when history need not play a role in the interpretation of the present. That said, I definitely believe that there are times when to know more is to truly have found an appreciation for the subject in question. I think it is inspiring the way Barrett embraces not only his own interpretation of the work of art but the way he has included even young students. Using those out of the art field to add their own interpretation reinforces the importance of your own personal thoughts and feeling when questioning a piece of art. By giving the viewer the confidence to not discredit their own critical analysis this can help them to learn about themselves as much as the art that they are looking at
ReplyDeleteIn a way I do like Barrett's discussion on what art really is, according to some artisans and aesthetcians. It seems like one of the biggest hang up that some of these people have is the fact that they either accept contemporary art or not. Some claim art to be an "open concept", while others claim that there should be a definitive subject and from a certain point of view. Still others talk about how one should base whether a new piece of artwork is "good" if it follows guidelines set up by previous pieces.
ReplyDeleteI personally believe that some adherence to the fundamental principals of art is key in distinguishing actual art from a 4 year old's scribbling. However we do need folks like Marcel Duchamp to look at art as an open interpretation and push the boundaries of what art is, lest it become immensely stale and uninteresting. So, in all actuality we need both the art purists and the art contemporaries to both push the boundaries and to keep things somewhat in check.
(This is Clark Hall, I forgot my password to my last blogger account, so I had to use another.)
I believe that Barrett uses a good process in order to interpret a work of art. I agree with Barrett’s principles as he has a very holistic approach. For example, he looks at the artist’s life, his whole range of paintings, the themes he has been concerned with throughout the his/her career, the objects that have been appearing in the work of art, and how these might be symbols that lead to other conclusions, or more answers that might complicate things more. Also, as shown from the reading, he Barrett also looks at what other people have said about an artist or actual art works in order to reach a better interpretation. Through reading abut these principles, viewers are able to better explain and articulate why artists go the way they go, and what they want to tell the viewer through their work. However, I believe that art can be viewed in any way people feel they should look at it, and let the feelings that a piece of art evokes, explain what it could possibly mean.
ReplyDeleteWrong interpretation? Wrong. Barret’s strongest point is that you cannot be incorrect when viewing art because it is in fact how it makes you feel. You hopefully will delve further to find the artist’s intent and expand your thought and understanding of the artist or artwork. The better interpreters are the one’s who are more knowledgeable. Yes, we as studio art and art history majors are able to look at a piece with no prior background information. We are able to comment on our initial feelings and aesthetic qualities of the piece and possibly identify the origin, but the entire meaning of a good piece of art is generally not grasped all at once without more knowledge. For example, as a class we viewed Laylah Ali’s painting of the “Greenheads” and were able to make many observations about it, but I am still unable to understand her intent without a deeper research into her thought process. While our own thoughts of the painting without Ali’s influence are very important, I believe that a good art viewer should never stop there. They should further research, understand, and might not always agree with the artist’s intent as well as other interpreters opinions.
ReplyDeleteI don't know about agreeing or disagreeing with Barrett's process (to each their own, right?), but I do LIKE the way his goes about interpreting the work. I think that he gives a very good step by step way of looking at a work of art without making the steps seem tedious. Mostly I like the depth he shows within each step. Just when you think you know enough about the culture or significance of the apple being green you find another question or open ended "answer". He shows very well how an artist's body of work reveals details about a singular work of art. Also, the fact that he looks at other interpretations I found, well for lack of a better word, enlightening. This was not something I have ever considered doing as a part of my own process, but when I thought about it doing so makes total sense. Our opinions can be informed or influenced by others so why not see what else is out there being said about the work you are interpreting? Overall, I would say his resounding message is KEEP LOOKING. whether this looking be through research or just plain staring at the art. Personally, I do think this enriches a viewers experience of the art. By looking they will want to find out more about the art and then maybe they are then buying art books and/or going to more museums and/or then realizing how important art is to culture. And then maybe they tell a friend, who tells a friend, well you get the idea and I am being to run off to another topic... So in summary I like how Barrett's process challenges the viewer to LOOK and THINK and QUESTION.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with Barrett’s principles of interpretation. One principle I found especially interesting was “Interpretations of artworks need not be limited to what the artist intended in making those artworks”(Barrett14). It is okay to not be limited by the intentions of an artist because in my opinion, artists can do things in their work that they do not even realize they are doing until someone else takes a second look. Pieces of art create different emotions in different viewers so there cannot possibly be only one correct interpretation, therefore I think that it is a good thing to look outside of the artist’s intentions. After all, if it were up to Margritte, his work would not have been interpreted at all. This enriches a viewer’s experience by allowing them to think for themselves and not be restricted to accepting what the artist wants their work to mean. It is important to have the intentions of the artist in mind however because they can provide powerful insight into the meaning of a work. Barrett’s principles seek to give viewers a more enriching experience with art by allowing every viewer to interpret what they see. Anyone can look at a piece of art, therefore they should be able to interpret what the works mean to them and reflect on their “new insights into the world” (Barrett 37).
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed this article. Barrett’s ideas of interpretation allow for anyone and everyone to have a valid interpretation of art; there is no such thing as a wrong reading of a painting, and everyone’s reading has value. Barrett offered us his way of interpreting art. He began by simple listing what he saw, then he looked at Magritte’s history, his other art, and then referred to other critics’ writings on the subject. Despite his interest in creating a thorough analysis, he was very open to listening to other’s interpretations, even those of nine year olds. His philosophy on this matter is very contemporary: there is no hierarchy or exact iconography that must be read by someone highly educated. Instead, everyone has access to this work, and can take something valuable from the experience. One point of Barrett’s I particularly appreciated was that people can read more into a work than what the artist intended, and that people should read into the works. He also wrote about how much critics can influence the public’s ideas of art, and the responsibility inherent in the position, which I also believe is an especially important point.
ReplyDelete