# Interpreting works of art **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Tags:** movies\ **Created:** [August 26, 2024, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interpreting-works-of-art/1006253 "2024-08-26T15:28:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2024, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interpreting-works-of-art/1006253/61 "2024-08-29T22:49:42Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > A problem with letting elites define what is art. But that’s not remotely a part of this conversation. Nobody here is talking about the definition of art. No one is saying that a replica of a work of art isn’t art itself. Saying that the experience of viewing a work of art in person can’t be duplicated with a photograph of it has nothing to do with what is and is not defined as “art”. > [@Pleonast](#): > > If someone defines an object of art as everything within some spatial-temporal proximity of it, it’s not really the object they’re talking about, but their own life experiences. Life experiences are necessarily unique and special. There’s no need to invoke the object or ascribe magical properties to it. Every human being’s reaction to every piece of art is defined by that person’s life experiences. And the idea that the experience of seeing a work of art can be informed by the environment in which you see it is hardly controversial. If I have a digital copy of a movie - seeing it in a crowded theater, watching it on my TV at home alone, or viewing it on my iPhone on a crowded bus are going to give me vastly different experiences, even though the movie itself is exactly the same in all three contexts. > [@Pleonast](#): > > And insisting that one needs to see the original (and not a sufficiently accurate replica) is telling almost everyone that that art is inaccessible. When in reality, a replica could allow them to access it. Yes, it won’t be the same experience that someone seeing the original has, but that’s true even of others seeing the original. Yeah, well, space and time are a thing, and that’s not the fault of art “elites.” It’s just a fact of existence that there are intangible elements to viewing a work of art in person that aren’t easily reproduced. Especially with really old artifacts - there’s something about looking at an object, and knowing that another human touched _that specific_ object a hundred, or a thousand, or ten thousand years ago that absolutely cannot be reproduced by any replica, for obvious reasons. And let’s not lose sight of the fact that we’re not generally talking about “sufficiently accurate replicas.” We’re talking about people looking at art through a Google search. A person who has only ever studied a full-sized, exact replica of “David” might have had a poorer emotional experience than someone viewing the original, but they certainly have enough information to have an informed opinion about the statue. That is absolutely not true for someone who’s only ever seen a Rothko in a browser window. ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2024, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interpreting-works-of-art/1006253/62 "2024-08-29T23:09:48Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > But that’s not remotely a part of this conversation. Nobody here is talking about the definition of art. Of course it is. From the OP: > Why is the opinion of the late Roger Ebert more valid about a movie any better than mine? We’re talking about interpreting art. Whether or not to restrict interpretation to only original art and not replica art is on topic. > [@Miller](#): > > We’re talking about people looking at art through a Google search. I missed the memo. I’m taking about actual replicas of art, as indicated by my reference to professional reproductions like Lascaux. I accept without reservation that viewing pixels is fundamentally different than viewing a concrete object. ---
**Author:** ![Lucas\_Jackson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lucas_jackson/32/303_2.png) [@Lucas\_Jackson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lucas_Jackson)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2024, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interpreting-works-of-art/1006253/63 "2024-08-29T23:25:15Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Are you _sure_ you remember it? Because you’ve made a lot of claims about what Roger Ebert wrote that are factually incorrect. I confused those two movies, as has been shown, but the point stands. “a lot”? RE has opinions, I have mine. If his opinions can be “right” - so can mine. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2024, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interpreting-works-of-art/1006253/64 "2024-08-29T23:26:10Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > We’re talking about interpreting art. Whether or not to restrict interpretation to only original art and not replica art is on topic. The OP isn’t talking about the definition of art, though? “Why is this guy’s opinion about art better than mine?” is not remotely the same as “What counts as art?” The distinction between seeing art in person and viewing a reproduction isn’t about the definition of art, its about who has the most informed opinion. If the van Gogh museum burned to the ground, and all of the originals of his works were lost, then viewing reproductions of his work would be the only possibly way to interpret them. It wouldn’t be as good an interpretation as those made by people who still had access to the originals, but it would be the best we could do under the circumstances. > [@Pleonast](#): > > I missed the memo. I’m taking about actual replicas of art, as indicated by my reference to professional reproductions like Lascaux. Which is fine, but I’m pretty sure **Exapno** wasn’t, when you first replied to him. It wasn’t clear _you_ were talking about replicas until several posts into this digression. High quality replicas don’t even exist for the vast majority of fine art. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2024, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interpreting-works-of-art/1006253/65 "2024-08-29T23:49:36Z")
> [@Lucas\_Jackson](#): > > I confused those two movies, as has been shown, but the point stands. Does it? Complaining about the plot of _The Usual Suspects_ being too confusing is pretty different from complaining about the plot of “Blade Runner” being too confusing. The whole point of _The Usual Suspects_ is that the plot is _supposed_ to be super confusing, until the end, where it all falls into place. But it still needs to keep the viewer’s interest up until the big reveal, and for Roger Ebert, at least, it failed to do that. No part of the bit of his review you quoted is _inaccurate_ about anything. > [@Lucas\_Jackson](#): > > RE has opinions, I have mine. If his opinions can be “right” - so can mine. Well, yeah, of course. There is no wrong answer to “Did you like this movie?” Your opinion is 100% as correct as Roger Ebert’s opinion, even when they’re diametrically opposed. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2024, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interpreting-works-of-art/1006253/66 "2024-08-30T00:21:27Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > And insisting that one needs to see the original (and not a sufficiently accurate replica) is telling almost everyone that that art is inaccessible. See, this is why I’ve tried to get out of this lunatic argument. I never said or implied that the average person needs to see the original to appreciate art. I agreed with you that reproductions of art can be “impactful”. I do go further than that and insist that seeing the original adds a, say, special sauce. You argued that “There’s no magic essence that makes the originals special.” Maybe you’re wrong about that. Maybe that’s where your arguments parted from reality. Ironic that magic would be involved. I did say that professional critics have a duty to see originals whenever possible, emphasizing the point that critics and reviewers are different creatures, and both of them different from ordinary viewers. You’ve ignored that aspect entirely, despite it being at the core of my argument. I rate that “interesting technique, but not art.” ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2024, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interpreting-works-of-art/1006253/67 "2024-08-30T00:27:25Z")
> [@Lucas\_Jackson](#): > > Example; Blade Runner - he gave it 1.5 stars and wrote: > _"Once again, my comprehension began to slip, and finally I wrote down: ‘To the degree that I do understand, I don’t care.’_ It won two Oscars. Yeah yeah, this quote was about _The Usual Suspects_. Can I just say that _Blade Runner_ was in fact a 1.5 star movie and _Blade Runner: 2049_ was far worse? Talk about knowing not art when you see it. ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2024, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interpreting-works-of-art/1006253/68 "2024-08-30T00:58:11Z")
My first wife was an artist. Her style was representational, but often in fantasy ways. When my father first saw one of her pieces, he did a spontaneous commentary on it, pointing out each element how they connected to form the whole, and what it represented. After he left, I said to my wife, 'He’s obviously very impressed by what you did." “Yeah,” she said. “Too bad he’s completely wrong.” “What do you mean, wrong?” “What he saw was not what I meant, at all.” “What did you mean? What did you want to say?” “It really doesn’t matter,” she said. “I drew what I felt. He saw what he felt.” I spent my entire working life in communications. To me, if you mean to say something and the other person doesn’t get what you’re trying to say, it’s a failure. To her, the point was not the message, it was whether or not it inspired a reaction. BTW, I personally loved the piece, whatever the hell she intended it to say. It’s the one piece of her art I asked for in the divorce and it still hangs in my house. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2024, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interpreting-works-of-art/1006253/69 "2024-08-30T01:04:29Z")
Would you be comfortable posting a photo of it? I’m intrigued. ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2024, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interpreting-works-of-art/1006253/70 "2024-08-30T01:13:03Z")
Not without her permission. She never displayed it publicly. And we haven’t spoken in years. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2024, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interpreting-works-of-art/1006253/71 "2024-08-30T01:14:12Z")
Understood! ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2024, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interpreting-works-of-art/1006253/72 "2024-08-30T01:25:40Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > I did say that professional critics have a duty to see originals whenever possible, emphasizing the point that critics and reviewers are different creatures, and both of them different from ordinary viewers. You’ve ignored that aspect entirely, despite it being at the core of my argument. I rate that “interesting technique, but not art.” Well, just as I don’t see a significant distinction between an original object of art and a sufficient replica, I don’t see a significant distinction between a viewer, a reviewer, and a critic. To be clear, this is in the context of art interpretation. There’s clear economic differences among all those. ---
**Author:** ![Slithy\_Tove](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slithy_tove/32/18248_2.png) [@Slithy\_Tove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slithy_Tove)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2024, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interpreting-works-of-art/1006253/73 "2024-08-30T01:35:03Z")
At the risk of being the thread bore (as if that’s ever stopped me) I’ll reiterate the concept of [The Death of the Author.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_the_Author) Here’s the [original essay](https://writing.upenn.edu/~taransky/Barthes.pdf). And here’s the ever-reliable [Lindsay Ellis giving her take on it on YouTube.](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MGn9x4-Y_7A&pp=ygUhTGluZHNheSBlbGxpcyBkZWF0aCBvZiB0aGUgYXV0aG9y) The upshot is that you, as the creator, have no right to dictate how your creation is interpreted (any more than I have the right to dictate that anyone click on any links I embed in my post). ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2024, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interpreting-works-of-art/1006253/74 "2024-08-30T01:57:52Z")
I don’t think the author has the final say in how his or her work is interpreted. I can imagine a work calling to mind an association for the majority of their audience, one that the author missed at the moment of the work’s creation. Indeed, Nick Cave goes further in the Red Hand Files linked to in Post #7 (thanks don\_t\_ask) > There is great danger in asking a songwriter to explain their songs – or at least to make the assumption that their interpretation is in some way more valid or true than your own. This is simply not the case. I believe the fan often has a deeper understanding of a given song than its creator. Sometimes, I feel that I am the last to know what one of my own songs actually means. Sometimes, they take many years to reveal themselves. With that in mind, as you’ve asked, I will tell you what I think is going on in ‘Rings of Saturn’. I only hope my answer does not diminish the value of the song for you. All that said, there are interpretations that don’t make a lot of sense and can be demonstrated as such. By extension, there are better and worse interpretations by fan-wank standards. All the same, if someone wants to stick with their reaction after having certain internal inconsistencies pointed out, there’s no helping it and no necessary falsehood, provided they are merely stating how they reacted. Some reactions are of wider interest than others though. ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2024, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interpreting-works-of-art/1006253/75 "2024-08-30T02:05:18Z")
> [@Slithy\_Tove](#): > > The upshot is that you, as the creator, have no right to dictate how your creation is interpreted (any more than I have the right to dictate that anyone click on any links I embed in my post). And that right there is the crux of the debate whether art is a form of expression, as my first wife claimed, or communication, which I claimed. I’ve had this conversation with many graphic designers (some of whom are married to “fine artists”). And the line gets even blurrier, because a reporter can turn around and write a novel, and a painter can do illustrations on the side. ---
**Author:** ![Q.Q.Switcheroo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/q.q.switcheroo/32/5713_2.png) [@Q.Q.Switcheroo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Q.Q.Switcheroo)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2024, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interpreting-works-of-art/1006253/76 "2024-08-30T02:12:13Z")
While we’re at it, here’s Walter Benjamin’s [The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction](https://web.mit.edu/allanmc/www/benjamin.pdf). ---
**Author:** ![Beckdawrek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/beckdawrek/32/3647_2.png) [@Beckdawrek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beckdawrek)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2024, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interpreting-works-of-art/1006253/77 "2024-08-30T02:15:43Z")
I love Pollock. And I am sure he had loads of pat answers. He was full of shit, tho’ Drunk, mean and probably abusive, and was messing with young girls he shouldn’t have been. Schizophrenic and killed himself in a car, drunk. Yeah, I wouldn’t have believed a word he said. But I love his canvases. I’ve seen two and they are wonderous to behold. ---
**Author:** ![Slithy\_Tove](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slithy_tove/32/18248_2.png) [@Slithy\_Tove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slithy_Tove)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2024, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interpreting-works-of-art/1006253/78 "2024-08-30T02:54:48Z")
> [@Kent\_Clark](#): > > And the line gets even blurrier, because a reporter can turn around and write a novel, and a painter can do illustrations on the side. A thereby hangs a thread. Because when Jimmy Breslin wrote novels they were pretty good, but when Tom Wolfe switched from New Journalism to fiction it was disappointing. Andy Warhol started out as a gifted commercial artist, created some worthwhile statements as a pop artist, then reverted back to a celebrity artist not more much esteemed than Leroy Neiman. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2024, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interpreting-works-of-art/1006253/79 "2024-08-30T12:47:30Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Rothko is often dismissed for just painting big colored squares, but there’s an interplay of technique and material in his paintings that can’t really be captured by a reproduction, that’s quite breathtaking when seen in person. The other thing I’ve noticed about viewing Rothko and Pollock in person is seeing not just one, but several works in the same room, greatly enhances the experience. > [@Toxgoddess](#): > > Just like Dad’s drop cloths. Unless your Dad was some kind of savant at getting his paint splatters to land with intentionality in fractally-complex patterns, no, his drop cloths were nothing like a Pollock. ---
**Author:** ![puzzlegal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puzzlegal/32/3827_2.png) [@puzzlegal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puzzlegal)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2024, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interpreting-works-of-art/1006253/80 "2024-08-30T16:12:37Z")
I “get” Pollack. I don’t “get” Rothko. But i haven’t really looked at his works since i was young, maybe i should try again Pollack’s works aren’t just large, they are 3D, and brimming with energy. I don’t really like them, but they are impressive and moving in a way a painter’s drop cloth just isn’t. I understand why someone who isn’t me might want to spend millions to have one in his mansion and enjoy it up close and personal every day. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interpreting-works-of-art/1006253.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interpreting-works-of-art/1006253.md?page=5)