In my opinion, art truly does not have any meaning without interpretation. The only reason we could possibly enjoy/like any kind of art, other than it's "mystification" brought upon by popular media, is the fact that we can relate directly with it, and this requires a degree of interpretation. Very few works of art, paintings in particular, have a clear cut meaning. This ambiguity that the artist creates allows us to fill in the gaps and make it pertain directly to us, where, in some cases, we feel as if we can sense the artist's true intentions. This ambiguity is a sort of "puzzle" that has no specific answer, except to the individual who interprets it. As is said by Nietzsche in the essay "There are no facts, only interpretations."
The Mona Lisa has been subject a wide variety of interpretation throughout its existence, and yet, no one truly knows the true "secrets" behind it, if there are any at all.
Another topic brought up in the essay is the idea that the role of content in art has changed over time. The essay brings up the idea that a work of art used to be defined through its content, yet it also addresses the idea that content can not even appear in some art. Abstract art can arguably address an emotion or idea without the use of direct content, however complex ideas cannot be expressed through the use of abstract art, I believe that it is easiest to express the emotion of anger through abstract art, but only in the feeling's most raw form.
I agree with you that art has no meaning without interpretation. I also say that sense every person interprets art in their own individual way, that there is no "set" interpretation of a piece of art.
ReplyDelete