I have a possibly relevant story about “professional” art interpreters, curators at the National Gallery of Art. I was rather stunned to learn that they don’t know and don’t particularly care what an artist’s intent was when creating the art.
I learned this by listening to a thesis presentation by a grad student there about a particular series of art pieces by Jasper Johns. It seemed entirely plausible, yet during the followup questions none of the people in the audience (virtually all staff members and grad students) asked what seemed to me the obvious question – “Since Johns is still living, have you tried contacting him to find out whether he agrees with your interpretation?” So, after the presentation and question session was over (I was working as a technician at the event and it would have been inappropriate to interrupt it with questions of my own) I went up to the guy and asked him. The answer was “no” and he seemed really quite surprised by the idea.
And I followed up with the same general question to bunches of curators over the next few weeks, and got the same response. The meaning of the art is in the mind of the viewer (or listener, or whatever) and the intent of the artist at the time of creation is at best an interesting historical footnote.
I don’t think they made the intellectual leap that I did upon learning this … I dunno what to call it, it’s not a professional “practice” because, um, no one actually does anything … well, call it “attitude”, I suppose. My intellectual leap was to understand that this attitude makes their entire profession irrelevant, at best an uninteresting historical footnote. The really odd thing (to me) is, this attitude may be entirely correct. But that’s for another thread.
The Piss Christ photo will mean something entirely different to a person who has no knowledge of its history (or more accurately, the press and public reaction to it when it was created), than it will to someone who does know the background. The title itself suggests a question, “Is the title actually a part of the art?”
I don’t believe anyone who sees the image in ignorance of the history AND the title, would be offended by the image itself. The offense is given (or perhaps taken) by those two pieces of knowledge.
So what this is, my friends, is another of the endless meaningless issues illustrated by questions like, “What is the sound of one hand clapping?”, or “If a tree fall in the forest and no one is there to hear it, …?”
You may as well argue over whether Lassie is better at being a dog than Willie is at being a whale. (Me, I vote Lassie.)
