My earliest memory of fine art was an elementary school field trip to the local art museum. During our tour, the teacher would occasionally ask several students what they thought a particular piece represented. Each kid had a different answer, and she responded to each one of them with "That's very good!".
It's not uncommon for works of art to be deemed "up for interpretation". In one respect, this practice is satisfying. Since a work can remind different people of different things, it ought to make sense to say that they are all correct, so long as their perception is of real meaning and substance. The problem arises when you reintroduce the artist into the equation.
The Everyone's Right doctrine operates under the assumption that art is by nature subjective. It can't be said of a subjective thing that it has a meaning, because its identity is dependent on observation. It would require that every artist always attempts to create something more like a mirror; something that is intended to absorb part of the viewer and reflect that input back out. A mirror may have a purpose, but it does not have meaning.
Artists are expressive. All forms of art(literature, dance, painting, poetry, sculpture, speech, etc.) are meant to operate as means of communication, sending an encoded message, through an obstructed version of an idea, from the artist to the observers. Things can get lost in translation, so every observer won't accurately translate the piece into the correct idea it's based on. That does not mean that any observer's translation is all of the sudden correct. Say two viewers develop definitively contrasting interpretations. Where does that leave us? To say they could both be correct would deem art paradoxical, an thus practically meaningless.
Our differences will always affect our perceptions. While acceptance and symbiosis are absolutely important, we can't let the pursuit of an "equality of ideas" deprive those responsible for the beautiful things in the world of the truth behind their creations. This may even mean concluding that we can't ever know who's right or wrong, but it's far better to fail to understand than to obstruct.
The Everyone's Right doctrine operates under the assumption that art is by nature subjective. It can't be said of a subjective thing that it has a meaning, because its identity is dependent on observation. It would require that every artist always attempts to create something more like a mirror; something that is intended to absorb part of the viewer and reflect that input back out. A mirror may have a purpose, but it does not have meaning.
Artists are expressive. All forms of art(literature, dance, painting, poetry, sculpture, speech, etc.) are meant to operate as means of communication, sending an encoded message, through an obstructed version of an idea, from the artist to the observers. Things can get lost in translation, so every observer won't accurately translate the piece into the correct idea it's based on. That does not mean that any observer's translation is all of the sudden correct. Say two viewers develop definitively contrasting interpretations. Where does that leave us? To say they could both be correct would deem art paradoxical, an thus practically meaningless.
Our differences will always affect our perceptions. While acceptance and symbiosis are absolutely important, we can't let the pursuit of an "equality of ideas" deprive those responsible for the beautiful things in the world of the truth behind their creations. This may even mean concluding that we can't ever know who's right or wrong, but it's far better to fail to understand than to obstruct.
No comments:
Post a Comment