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,
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Of the three writers we discussed today, which of their views on interpretation seemed most aligned with your own?
Of the three writers we discussed in class, I agreed with Sontag's views the most, not only because they seemed the least contradictory but also because they were so cleanly and elegantly posed.
"Interpretation is the line between what the artist puts down and what the reader sees" (6). "To understand is to interpret.. thus interpretation is not an absolute value--interpretation itself must be evaluated within a view of human consciousness" (7). "Interpretation makes art managable, comfortable" (18). "Merit of work lies within meaning, not intention" (21). "Real art makes us nervous."
Sontag was ballsy. Comfortable with the uncomfortable. She understood the human psyche and had an incredible skill for observing and writing about art and human nature, which made her a great critic of both. One of her last statements, "Interpretation is a thing in the world, not just a commentary on it," especially resonated with me, because I believe that interpretation is so powerful it IS almost its own entity. Going into my senior capstone with "different interpretations of reality" as my focus, this quote is a great reference/guide for the concept that I'm trying to get across in my own work.
I agree with Caty that Sontag's Essays were the most "comfortable" and "understanding of the human psyche." I agree again with Caty on Sontag's explanation that, "Interpretation must be evaluated within a historical view of human consciousness." I think art should reflect the current struggles of ones era, it is what gives meaning and further contemplation. "To avoid interpretation, art may become a parody," this gave me a more solidified view I have towards the attention to form and content. Art may become "decorative" unless it has a specific direction. I agree with Caty on her guide for her concept that, "Interpretation is a thing in the world," it must be something that is significant not only to the artist but to the time one is demonstrating. I particularly related with Sontag's excerpt that art must, "Refer to the real world - to our knowledge, to our experience, to our values." This reference is what our senses acknowledge, what we know.
I tend to agree with parts of all of the writer’s views. Although Hume is a bit all over the place, he has some good points that I can find myself agreeing with. Barrett set the grounds for what is art, and I agreed with several points of hers as well. Additionally, Sontag had some valid points about interpretation of works of art. I want to start out with a quote by Hume, which reads, “beauty is no quality of things in themselves: it exists merely in the mind which contemplates them, and each mind perceives a different beauty”. I believe this to be entirely true, since what we see and experience shapes the way we view art and beauty for that matter. Hume states that the critics are the true judges, which I partially recognize. Critics, since it is their job, are good at what they do, due to practice and a “lifetime’s experience”. But I do not believe their voice is ultimately what we should listen to. Barrett states that we must first, instead of arguing over it, accept that something is art, and then move forward to determine on what grounds it is such. What criteria makes it good or bad art? I think there are too many disputes when it comes to contemporary works of art whether it should be considered art or not, it is best to just accept it and then determine the grounds for the opinion.
Like Caty and Peter, my own ideas of interpretation align mainly with Susan Sontag’s. I agree with her statements that events need interpretation in order to have meaning but that interpretation should have limits. I feel that an over-analysis of a work of art can diminish it and contribute to watering down the essence of it. I have always favored a more reactionary interpretation with works of art, relying more on feeling and emotion rather than philosophical or artistic contexts. I loved the theory presented by Sontag that “real art has the capacity to make us nervous” and that our interpretations are an effort to control what we view as unrestrained. With all of that being said, I do find interpretations and criticism helpful and enlightening. They are necessary, especially when attempting to appreciate some more difficult works of art, but like Sontag stated and Caty reiterated – interpretations are their own art form. I think that interpretations and criticisms should work to embellish a work of art – to add to its context in the world. Interpretation should always carry with it a respect towards the emotion and feeling inspired by a work and should not attempt to reduce it down to theories and inferences.
Hume and Barrett hold valuable viewpoints on the interpretation of art, but I--like Peter, Caty, and Clarese--found Sontag's analysis to be the most aligned with my own thoughts. I agreed with Hume’s list that detailed the four main qualities of a critic, but I did not agree that critics should be the “true judges” of a work. Hume also put me off because of the banter within his writing that took away from the impact of his true opinions. In Barrett’s writing, I agreed with most of his statements, including the point that no single interpretation of a work totally encompasses its meaning. As Abie stated, Barrett’s points “set the grounds” for the interpretation of art, but it was not until reading the Sontag excerpt did I really have a connection with a writer. I completely agree with Sontag in that the interpretation of a work is important, but one must remember to not get caught up in the systematic process of evaluation. Sontag discusses the need for an “erotics of art,” putting emphasis on the value of emotional, knee-jerk reactions to art. She also mentions how “real art” makes the viewer nervous, so the viewer interprets the content to “tame” the work. To me, this statement connects well with the “erotics of art” idea because good art creates a sudden, emotional response from the viewer that could potentially unnerve him or her. Guided by this raw reaction, the viewer can then analyze the work from a personal perspective and obtain meaning.
While I believe that all three writers have valid points about art interpretation, I find, much like the majority of the class, that Sontag’s view are most in line with my own. As Caty and Abie stated, Sontag was very articulate and bold with her opinions that made them convincing and easy to understand. Sontag is very against over intellectualized interpretations of art which can devalue the artwork. Like Clarice, I agree with this point because spending so much time analyzing and assigning meaning and theories to a piece take away from the initial emotional response the viewer experiences. Sontag also states the interpreting dulls down real art’s “capacity to make us nervous” and in turn “tames the work of art” (Sontag, 5). I believe that the emotional experiences viewers have with art, both comfortable and unnerving, are important and in large part make art beautiful and interesting.
In addition to Sontag’s points, I believe that Hume’s views set a foundation for interpreting art. I agree with Hume that there is no right or wrong interpretation of art since they vary from person to person. However, I feel that the importance Hume places on critics is a little overkill. I feel that critics, while their opinions are valuable, are not the only “true judges” of art and that they viewer’s judgment of art is a necessary part of experiencing an artwork. Overall, I found Hume to be tiring and contradictory with his think out loud writing style. Art can be interpreted to find meaning however it is important to enjoy the emotional reactions that art inspires in the viewer.
I also agree that Susan Sontag provided theories regarding the interpretation of art that align most closely to my own. She provides a quote by Oscar Wilde, stating "It is only shallow people who do not judge by appearances. The mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible." I was able to relate to this quote because until pursuing art in college I had never considered the content of the work I was creating, it was simply for visual appeal. I had always created art for purposes of aesthetics and thought nothing beyond that. Although I understand it is important and intellectually stimulating to discuss artwork on a deeper level, I am aware that unless firmly stated by the artist, it is almost impossible for a viewer to correctly interpret the meaning of a work of art. Thus, it seems silly to me to waste time debating the meaning of an artwork rather than enjoying and appreciating its beauty and allure. My stance corresponds with Susan Sontag's opinion that commentary on art should be less about meaning and more about what it is. Evaluating art too meticulously stirs unnecessary debate and confusion and ultimately takes away from the artwork itself.
Abie says it right, Hume is a bit all over the place, but his point about critics is true. They are there to help distinguish what should be considered ‘good’ and ‘bad’ art. Although, as Abie brought to attention, Hume’s quote, beauty is different for everyone. The experiences people have shape their perceptions of taste, and since everyone live very different lives, most (if not all) people’s tastes should differ. Barrett also shares that same idea. The majority of the class so far agrees that Sontag’s view on interpretation is the closest to their own. I believe that’s because she’s the most accessible to our current culture. Sontag understands contemporary art because she was in the midst of its outing. She knows that all artworks don’t need to be weighed down by careful scrutiny and criticism, because sometimes the works just, are. Although, I latch on to Barrett’s description of interpretation and interpreter the best. To interpret an artwork is to make it meaningful; even if the art work is a toilet plopped down in the middle of a museum, it should have some meaning—even if the meaning is that you hate it but you are willing to form a dialog, internal or external—so that you don’t just walk right past it.
I agree most with Sontag's theories on interpreting art, mainly due to her idea that "real art" should make us nervous, and the resulting interpretation is how we try to tame it and put it into context. This resonates most with my work in particular because I am aiming to evoke a nervous and uneasy emotional response in my viewers after an initially calming or feeling of aesthetic beauty. While I can understand Hume's argument that a true art critic is the ultimate taste maker for works of art, it is undeniable that every individual will have their own interpretations based on their own life experiences. In the end, as Sontag and Caty among others stated, interpretation is it's own entity in our world. We all have the ability to interpret art and an argument can be made that it is the right or wrong interpretation, but the act of interpreting the work gives it meaning to the individual.
I agree with Abie’s interpretation of Hume. I wholeheartedly agree with Hume’s view that beauty is varied between each person’s discretion. Beauty is not something that may be qualified into a set of terms or considerations; rather, it must be expressed differently within each of us. And, like Abie, I waver on Hume’s view on critics. While I do have critics that I trust and continue to read on certain subjects, I do not think we should blindly trust the word of one person, no matter how qualified he or she may be.
While I agree with Hume on his views of beauty, I find my own views on interpreting art aligning with that of Sontag. Like many of my classmates, I agree that Sontag’s views on an emotional response to work are valid. It is an expressive response, to not judge a work on a set of criteria or interpret its physical meaning, but rather to judge a work on the feelings it emotes. To me, Sontag’s views are what most creative minds hold themselves to. She was just brilliant enough to write them all down.
I feel like there is no really true answer to this question, because i can see some relations to all three authors. however there is one that I felt more of a connection to after reading their work.
I thought Hume contradicted himself however he showed both sides of the fence and it helped to show me both perspectives and i enjoyed that. I also liked how he showed both the professional side and the individual side showing the differences between the two interpretations of art. I also like how he talked about if there is a standard of taste this truly made me think about critiquing art and if there actually is a standard of art.
However i also did like sontag and her down to earth and realistic view of the critiquing of art.
Of the three writers we discussed in class, I agreed with Sontag's views the most, not only because they seemed the least contradictory but also because they were so cleanly and elegantly posed.
ReplyDelete"Interpretation is the line between what the artist puts down and what the reader sees" (6).
"To understand is to interpret.. thus interpretation is not an absolute value--interpretation itself must be evaluated within a view of human consciousness" (7).
"Interpretation makes art managable, comfortable" (18).
"Merit of work lies within meaning, not intention" (21).
"Real art makes us nervous."
Sontag was ballsy. Comfortable with the uncomfortable. She understood the human psyche and had an incredible skill for observing and writing about art and human nature, which made her a great critic of both. One of her last statements, "Interpretation is a thing in the world, not just a commentary on it," especially resonated with me, because I believe that interpretation is so powerful it IS almost its own entity. Going into my senior capstone with "different interpretations of reality" as my focus, this quote is a great reference/guide for the concept that I'm trying to get across in my own work.
I agree with Caty that Sontag's Essays were the most "comfortable" and "understanding of the human psyche." I agree again with Caty on Sontag's explanation that, "Interpretation must be evaluated within a historical view of human consciousness." I think art should reflect the current struggles of ones era, it is what gives meaning and further contemplation.
ReplyDelete"To avoid interpretation, art may become a parody," this gave me a more solidified view I have towards the attention to form and content. Art may become "decorative" unless it has a specific direction.
I agree with Caty on her guide for her concept that, "Interpretation is a thing in the world," it must be something that is significant not only to the artist but to the time one is demonstrating.
I particularly related with Sontag's excerpt that art must, "Refer to the real world - to our knowledge, to our experience, to our values." This reference is what our senses acknowledge, what we know.
-PCP
I tend to agree with parts of all of the writer’s views. Although Hume is a bit all over the place, he has some good points that I can find myself agreeing with. Barrett set the grounds for what is art, and I agreed with several points of hers as well. Additionally, Sontag had some valid points about interpretation of works of art.
ReplyDeleteI want to start out with a quote by Hume, which reads, “beauty is no quality of things in themselves: it exists merely in the mind which contemplates them, and each mind perceives a different beauty”. I believe this to be entirely true, since what we see and experience shapes the way we view art and beauty for that matter. Hume states that the critics are the true judges, which I partially recognize. Critics, since it is their job, are good at what they do, due to practice and a “lifetime’s experience”. But I do not believe their voice is ultimately what we should listen to.
Barrett states that we must first, instead of arguing over it, accept that something is art, and then move forward to determine on what grounds it is such. What criteria makes it good or bad art? I think there are too many disputes when it comes to contemporary works of art whether it should be considered art or not, it is best to just accept it and then determine the grounds for the opinion.
Like Caty and Peter, my own ideas of interpretation align mainly with Susan Sontag’s. I agree with her statements that events need interpretation in order to have meaning but that interpretation should have limits. I feel that an over-analysis of a work of art can diminish it and contribute to watering down the essence of it. I have always favored a more reactionary interpretation with works of art, relying more on feeling and emotion rather than philosophical or artistic contexts.
ReplyDeleteI loved the theory presented by Sontag that “real art has the capacity to make us nervous” and that our interpretations are an effort to control what we view as unrestrained. With all of that being said, I do find interpretations and criticism helpful and enlightening. They are necessary, especially when attempting to appreciate some more difficult works of art, but like Sontag stated and Caty reiterated – interpretations are their own art form. I think that interpretations and criticisms should work to embellish a work of art – to add to its context in the world. Interpretation should always carry with it a respect towards the emotion and feeling inspired by a work and should not attempt to reduce it down to theories and inferences.
Hume and Barrett hold valuable viewpoints on the interpretation of art, but I--like Peter, Caty, and Clarese--found Sontag's analysis to be the most aligned with my own thoughts. I agreed with Hume’s list that detailed the four main qualities of a critic, but I did not agree that critics should be the “true judges” of a work. Hume also put me off because of the banter within his writing that took away from the impact of his true opinions. In Barrett’s writing, I agreed with most of his statements, including the point that no single interpretation of a work totally encompasses its meaning. As Abie stated, Barrett’s points “set the grounds” for the interpretation of art, but it was not until reading the Sontag excerpt did I really have a connection with a writer.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Sontag in that the interpretation of a work is important, but one must remember to not get caught up in the systematic process of evaluation. Sontag discusses the need for an “erotics of art,” putting emphasis on the value of emotional, knee-jerk reactions to art. She also mentions how “real art” makes the viewer nervous, so the viewer interprets the content to “tame” the work. To me, this statement connects well with the “erotics of art” idea because good art creates a sudden, emotional response from the viewer that could potentially unnerve him or her. Guided by this raw reaction, the viewer can then analyze the work from a personal perspective and obtain meaning.
While I believe that all three writers have valid points about art interpretation, I find, much like the majority of the class, that Sontag’s view are most in line with my own. As Caty and Abie stated, Sontag was very articulate and bold with her opinions that made them convincing and easy to understand. Sontag is very against over intellectualized interpretations of art which can devalue the artwork. Like Clarice, I agree with this point because spending so much time analyzing and assigning meaning and theories to a piece take away from the initial emotional response the viewer experiences. Sontag also states the interpreting dulls down real art’s “capacity to make us nervous” and in turn “tames the work of art” (Sontag, 5). I believe that the emotional experiences viewers have with art, both comfortable and unnerving, are important and in large part make art beautiful and interesting.
ReplyDeleteIn addition to Sontag’s points, I believe that Hume’s views set a foundation for interpreting art. I agree with Hume that there is no right or wrong interpretation of art since they vary from person to person. However, I feel that the importance Hume places on critics is a little overkill. I feel that critics, while their opinions are valuable, are not the only “true judges” of art and that they viewer’s judgment of art is a necessary part of experiencing an artwork. Overall, I found Hume to be tiring and contradictory with his think out loud writing style. Art can be interpreted to find meaning however it is important to enjoy the emotional reactions that art inspires in the viewer.
I also agree that Susan Sontag provided theories regarding the interpretation of art that align most closely to my own. She provides a quote by Oscar Wilde, stating "It is only shallow people who do not judge by appearances. The mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible." I was able to relate to this quote because until pursuing art in college I had never considered the content of the work I was creating, it was simply for visual appeal. I had always created art for purposes of aesthetics and thought nothing beyond that. Although I understand it is important and intellectually stimulating to discuss artwork on a deeper level, I am aware that unless firmly stated by the artist, it is almost impossible for a viewer to correctly interpret the meaning of a work of art. Thus, it seems silly to me to waste time debating the meaning of an artwork rather than enjoying and appreciating its beauty and allure. My stance corresponds with Susan Sontag's opinion that commentary on art should be less about meaning and more about what it is. Evaluating art too meticulously stirs unnecessary debate and confusion and ultimately takes away from the artwork itself.
ReplyDeleteAbie says it right, Hume is a bit all over the place, but his point about critics is true. They are there to help distinguish what should be considered ‘good’ and ‘bad’ art. Although, as Abie brought to attention, Hume’s quote, beauty is different for everyone. The experiences people have shape their perceptions of taste, and since everyone live very different lives, most (if not all) people’s tastes should differ. Barrett also shares that same idea.
ReplyDeleteThe majority of the class so far agrees that Sontag’s view on interpretation is the closest to their own. I believe that’s because she’s the most accessible to our current culture. Sontag understands contemporary art because she was in the midst of its outing. She knows that all artworks don’t need to be weighed down by careful scrutiny and criticism, because sometimes the works just, are. Although, I latch on to Barrett’s description of interpretation and interpreter the best. To interpret an artwork is to make it meaningful; even if the art work is a toilet plopped down in the middle of a museum, it should have some meaning—even if the meaning is that you hate it but you are willing to form a dialog, internal or external—so that you don’t just walk right past it.
I agree most with Sontag's theories on interpreting art, mainly due to her idea that "real art" should make us nervous, and the resulting interpretation is how we try to tame it and put it into context. This resonates most with my work in particular because I am aiming to evoke a nervous and uneasy emotional response in my viewers after an initially calming or feeling of aesthetic beauty.
ReplyDeleteWhile I can understand Hume's argument that a true art critic is the ultimate taste maker for works of art, it is undeniable that every individual will have their own interpretations based on their own life experiences. In the end, as Sontag and Caty among others stated, interpretation is it's own entity in our world. We all have the ability to interpret art and an argument can be made that it is the right or wrong interpretation, but the act of interpreting the work gives it meaning to the individual.
I agree with Abie’s interpretation of Hume. I wholeheartedly agree with Hume’s view that beauty is varied between each person’s discretion. Beauty is not something that may be qualified into a set of terms or considerations; rather, it must be expressed differently within each of us. And, like Abie, I waver on Hume’s view on critics. While I do have critics that I trust and continue to read on certain subjects, I do not think we should blindly trust the word of one person, no matter how qualified he or she may be.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree with Hume on his views of beauty, I find my own views on interpreting art aligning with that of Sontag. Like many of my classmates, I agree that Sontag’s views on an emotional response to work are valid. It is an expressive response, to not judge a work on a set of criteria or interpret its physical meaning, but rather to judge a work on the feelings it emotes. To me, Sontag’s views are what most creative minds hold themselves to. She was just brilliant enough to write them all down.
I feel like there is no really true answer to this question, because i can see some relations to all three authors. however there is one that I felt more of a connection to after reading their work.
ReplyDeleteI thought Hume contradicted himself however he showed both sides of the fence and it helped to show me both perspectives and i enjoyed that. I also liked how he showed both the professional side and the individual side showing the differences between the two interpretations of art. I also like how he talked about if there is a standard of taste this truly made me think about critiquing art and if there actually is a standard of art.
However i also did like sontag and her down to earth and realistic view of the critiquing of art.