I believe that the meaning of a work of art is dynamic, that is, the meaning of a work changes depending upon the perspective of the beholder. I think once a person views, reads, listens to, or senses it, he/she owns its meaning based on their life experiences, and all interpretations are correct.
I don’t want to debate what qualifies as art. Let’s just assume that something someone creates and calls art is legitimite.
A little about my personal background with art. I write poetry, play the flute, sing and write music. That’s primarily the art I create. I don’t typically share the poetry or the music-writing, but I regularly perform flute and voice. I also appreciate other types of art: painting, drawing, writing, sculpting, architecture, etc. etc.
I want to hear from both artists and mere observers.
Well, we obviously have some agreement. No further point, but there may be people who don’t agree. If there isn’t anyone out there that believes that an interpretation of art is strictly defined by the artist, then my thread will die.
-------------------------------------------------
There is no such thing as intrinsic Art.
----------------------------------------------------
I’m not sure I understand what you mean by that.
Simply that Art has no universal essence. In other words even Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony is not transcultural without conditioning , and an appreciation of the works of Picasso must be learned. Yet everyday, with a simple turn of the head, we probably see by happenstance a thousand images in everyday life of perfect color, content, balance and beauty, far beyond Picasso, but it takes somebody like a cultural jiggler like Andy Warhol to help us focus on an image to admire , even to the extent of focusing on a commonplace Campbell soup can.
In other words Art is everywhere, but it exists only in the mind of the experiencing organism and only a special person can teach others what is actually Art.
Hmm…now that I wrote this I wonder…do I make sense?
Yes, but your colour fonts are hard to read. Heart On My Sleeve, I’m more than ready to debate, but, where exactly is the debate?
Is the meaning of art dynamic? Yes, of course, but that’s kind of a truism as the meaning of any and all things is dynamic.
If you sit down in front of a painting for half an hour, as the time passes, your attention will shift around the canvas, you will notice some details, forget others, grow bored… In other words, all human perceptions are fleeting and there is no permanent meaning to anything.
Way back when I was in school, we read “Hills Like White Elephants”. Our teacher solicited input from the room as to what the meaning of the story was. Nobody knew it was about abortion, but everyone interpreted it in their own way, based on their own experience. But it was about abortion. Does that mean everyone was wrong?
We did a similar thing when we all had to write poems, then read them. We went around the room and people suggested what the poems meant. Eventually, someone would interpret it the same as the poet, and finally, they are right.
Maybe my teacher was an idiot? Maybe I’m an idiot since I’ve already gotten two “Well, Duh’s!”
I don’t agree with this. Some people “get it” immediately, and some people don’t. Regardless of culture. Music is called a universal language. There are specific points about that statement I don’t agree with, but perhaps it can be called universal because it can be interpreted as the listener experiences it.
Debating what art “is” is not the subject of this thread. We are assuming art can be interpreted. I am responsible to reading this thread since I started it, but I don’t to debate what art is.
