For next Tuesday’s class, please read and respond to the following (blog entries/comments must be posted by 6 p.m. on Tuesday, June 3rd):
- Maurice Berger’s introduction to The Crisis of Criticism
- Sontag, Susan. “Against Interpretation”
- Saltz, Jerry. “Seeing Out Loud,” The Village Voice, December 16, 2005.
Also — please look over the following reviews (second one on way):
Posted by Rachael Harter: Review: The Ballad of Emmett Till
Questions for Reading:
You don’t have to respond to each author — I’m more interested in your overall response to larger concepts than making sure that you respond to each reading. To help get you started, below are some of questions (or, if something else takes your attention and you want to discuss it, that’s fine, too!):
- Consider Sontag and Saltz’s discussion on art criticism, its drawbacks, its challenges, and their own personal take on how art should(or should not) be approached and/or written about. Which one presents views that is most like your own? Explain why and be sure to reference the readings. Also, you may find that you agree with both on a few points, but neither on all, and that’s fine too — just explain.
- Consider the title of Sontag’s essay, “Against Interpretation.” After reading Sontag, explain your understanding of that title. What is “against interpretation,” how? why? Do you agree or disagree?
- According to Saltz, what is the primary problem with art criticism? why? What examples can you think of (or provide) that exemplify his opinion?
- After reading Berger’s introduction to the book, The Crisis of Criticism, explain why you think criticism is in crisis — in other words, what exactly is the crisis? What is Berger’s view on this crisis? And do you agree or disagree and why?
Feel free to also write on anything else that takes your attention in any of the readings; just be sure to make reference to the readings and explain your response.
![OMG ! [ Explore #1 ]](http://static.flickr.com/2631/4150305338_5dd4270c04_t.jpg "OMG ! [ Explore #1 ]")
15 responses so far ↓
Saraphina // June 3, 2008 at 8:36 am |
I found in retrospect to everything we have been discussing in class about the entirety of Art and the dedication of the battle between Plato and Aristotle to be intriguing as they both have almost identical capabilities Susan Sontag points out deliberately, not so much creatively. She explains all the facts with no real intention except to show the almost intention of Plato that he did not approve of art. Its fascinating that a man of such liberating perspective found no use for art as his meant to Socrates was the divination of progress and free mind and later was killed because of such close minded temperaments. The fact that Plato disapproves of art because it is not tangible with the imagery I find to be ludacirs and almost insulting to the rest of what the greeks were famous for, creation. As discussed later on in her essay, during the 12th stanza, she goes into the objectives between two other great philosophers Marx and Freud. I find it interesting that the discussion is Art that almost derives from there perspective, “that to understand is to interpret.” which can be related to the whole of art, and if not it seems we would do the opposite and alienate art from its true intention. (Ironic Marx wrote Alienated Labor)I agree that to interpret art is some what depleting the actual art of its true intentions, however it is also in my opinion that art is not only for the creator but for the viewer. I think that interpretation is mandatory or it can never have a true intention. Sontag disappoints me in her rave during 16.15 when she harshly describes how our world is depleted with interpretation. I don’t find interpretation to be taming, after all the shrew can never be tamed. I find it almost indecent of Sontag to rave on philitinsm when she in fact is part of it herself. Judging others who judge art I find that to be ironic. Interpretation running rampant in the “America’s” shocking someone has something displeasing to say about the united states, never. That I find it insulting that she even suggested that because we are the fabulous kingdom of red, blue and white our novels “don’t suggest any interesting concern with changes in their form, these arts remain prone to assault by interpretation.” What about the deep connections possibly in the work that interpretation is desired by the author.
I found it interesting in Maurice’s Bergers Introduction almost a declaration of the in and out phase of critics. Of course opposing and not deeming that “interpretation” as Sontag said and critiquing is the same. I find them highly related as the overall expectation that most people suggest in critiques is their overall interpretation. I enjoyed the paragraph after discussing victim art and the prejudices society holds against our poor critiques in this world of mass marketing the paragraph on page 13 about academic criticism that was enlightening to the academic state of mind and the critiques that are false and real. As I agree , most critiques turn into almost incredibly dull and pointless academic bullshit. The finishing advice I found to be quite credible, from Roland Barthes, “breaks through the constraints of adjectives.” That the person who delivers the critiques has the ability to rise above the expected deliverance, almost biblical in a way.
Unlike the opposing article, that I found completely against the mainstream academia. Mr Jerry Saltz, I find to be well obvious in his intentions. Boring. Rethinking skill, how illuminating, isn’t that the definition of science’s progress today and society’s perfect imperfections? Looking for originality in Art work, another completely rejuvenated idea, again annoying. I do however feel oblige to climb off my cynical horse and praise that I agree in his opinion of how Art is actually supposed to be portrayed, in light, “opinions are tools for lisenting in on your thinking and expanding consciousness.” That was so deep it nearly made me blush. However again I am in concurrence with the discussion later that critics are almost metaphysical when it comes to critics and in fact cut off their entire purpose all together, trying to fill the void gaps with words to cover up what I believe improper understanding of what the Art actually is trying to portray. So much for separating interpretation from criticism.
Kristin Scott // June 3, 2008 at 10:14 am |
Moved Toi’s comment from under “About the Class”:
After reading Sontag I do understand and agree with “Against Interpretation” In this reading it was suggested that interpretation was viewed as a revision. I felt that this was the perfect word to describe “Interpretation” overall. “Revision” was simply genius because that is exactly what interpretation is. It’s a revision of each individual’s interpretation. Consistently things are being recreated, resorted, reconstructed, reinvented, and remade overall. Just like the old saying that there is nothing new under the sun. Their will always be interpretations as long as there is a human race. I feel that interpretation is underneath the term opinion. “What is needed is a vocabulary–a descriptive, rather than prescriptive” (quoted by section
I feel that this is an excellent way to convey to viewer exactly what you want them to interpret. I think that is ideas of using vocabulary to give a description rather than prescription could turn into excitement and a challenging educational experience for everyone.
According to Saltz, the primary problem with art criticism is (Quoted by Saltz) “nowadays, many see criticism mainly as a sales tool or a rah-rah device. Too many critics enthuse over everything they see or merely write descriptively. This sells everyone short and is creating a real disconnect. People report not liking 80 percent of the shows they see, yet 80 percent of reviews are positive or just descriptive.” Because individuals see critics and criticism as selling people short it’s makes me as a reader think twice before I read any type of review. For a perfect example I personally wouldn’t go to a high end music network email website to hear the latest about a new CD that just came out that I would be interested in, but instead I would talk to my peer community to find out the real deal on the CD release. I don’t want the glamour and glossed over reviews, I want the funky fresh truth of matter.
rachel galicia // June 3, 2008 at 1:02 pm |
Sontag and Saltz both had good views about art criticism. I do feel that Susan Sontag’s views are more like my own. She has this way of backing up art like I do. I almost felt like she was me at some points, like I was reading my own thoughts about criticism. She states “In most modern instances, interpretation amounts to the philistine refusal to leave the work of art alone. Real art has the capacity to make us nervous. By reducing the work of art to its content and then interpreting that, one tames the world of art. Interpretation makes art manageable, comformable.” I thought she really took the words out of my mouth. I mean some critics are good, I do like hearing what they think about the meaning of certain arts, but sometimes they go too far. Just leave it as it is. Art is powerful and fun, why do you have to spoil it with digging deeper and stating what they think the meaning is?
What I liked about Saltz’s is that he gives an explanation about what a critic should be or have. He explains that a critic has to have an eye for art and he explains what having an eye means. “It means engaging uncertainty and contingency, suspending disbelief, and trying to create a place for doubt, unpredictability, curiosity, and openness.” I loved that he said a place for doubt and suspending disbelief. To me, if you are going to critique something do it right and be open.
He also states that a lot of critics have ideas but no eye for art, which I also agree with. I feel that I don’t need to be asked what my art is saying, because sometimes I don’t have an answer.
So I do have common thoughts about critics with each of the authors but I do have to see myself liking Sontag more because she is totally against interpretation. “But the merit of these works certainly lies elsewhere than in their “meanings.” –Sontag.
In “The Crisis of Criticism” I felt that the crisis is that most people find the critic expendable. Critics “ support or analyze culture against the grain of popular tastes, indifference or hostility.”
Also the crisis is that critics are writing, not for the love of it, but to impress colleagues and they are forgetting their role in the “greater culture”. Their role to connect the reader with the bigger picture. Criticism is in need of “reconstruction”, they are basically obsessed with themselves.
April // June 3, 2008 at 1:21 pm |
Saltz had some very good ideas on what is wrong with art criticism today. He hates the idea of people acting “too safe” with their critics. He makes an extremely valid point with this comment because it is boring to read what he called “weak” reviews. It is during these reviews where the critic doesn’t really let the ready know his or her opinion. This is really annoying because that is the only reason I will sit down to read a review. I want to know if someone thought that the artwork was good, or bad. I don’t want to know that the critic, “Liked some things about the artists work, but wasn’t happy with other things…” This ties in with the fact that also in Saltz’s article, he wrote about how people have told him, “You shouldn’t write on things you don’t like.” He doesn’t believe in following this piece of advice either. In Saltz’s opinion, good criticism can get you in a little bit of trouble. I agree with this because when you are writing a critic, you are never going to have everyone agree with you, and you shouldn’t have everyone agree with you. Everyone all over the world has different opinions on what is good art and what is bad art, and these opinions are clashing everyday. Basically Saltz wants critics to start having more fun with their writing. He wants them to start confrontations, cause trouble, and write exactly what they feel. Easier said than done.
Michael Miles // June 3, 2008 at 3:14 pm |
When Sontag breathes life into the idea against interpretation of art, I was elated. I find that idea to be so rarely voiced by “high-minded” art people, however, I see so much truth in it. It’s something that I have held dear for years.
I attended a Catholic grade school and then a Lutheran High School and because of the religious underpinnings of the institutions, I found a constant push to find the “Christian interpretation.” This infuriated me and made me dislike much of my literature courses for years. Constantly being told, in the Cliff note’s sense, how to boil entire novels or plays down to a simple summarized point, I realized how much we were robbing from them. Often, I was told to find the “Christ like figure” in the story, and or how to boil characters down to representations of society, rather than to deal with understanding these characters as people. Now, while I admit, some authors make entire works based on this notion of characters and stories representing culture or societies or time periods, I reject the notion that all writers do this all the time, and I found myself disappointed at the way in which we stole the artist’s ability to connect with us. Many times, in fact, we blatantly ignored the words of the work itself to peer around the edges behind the work. It was such a frustrating enterprise.
Soon, however, I came to the conclusion, similar to Sontag, that over analyzing a work, attempting to boil an ocean’s essence down into one drop of water, was not just lazy and bad, but dangerous. I came to see that my own teachers (including College professors) had been taught one specific interpretation of a work as the truth and their class’s prerogative was to pass this “fact” down to their students. So, instead of creating conversation and depth filled discussion, we were taught the party line. Thus, they robbed my first experiences of many great works of fiction.
This experience culminated in one very disappointing event for me. When I was a senior in High School (2001), I, as the lone film student-to-be, was invited to attend a session in the summer after graduation, where the Principal of the school was going to show off the platform by which he would start a film class at the school. I was elated. I believed that this was finally something that was needed. (Especially at an institution that had often coward away from Film as sinful and trash) The goal of the class was cited to be to teach Christian students how to be viewers of movies and how to discuss film. The film chosen for the demonstration was “The Truman Show.” The day was supposed to run as a test version of what an actual week in class would have been like for this particular course.
So, sure to form, we screened the film, and then were asked to engage in a discussion. However, shortly after the discussion began, my heart sank. The entire discussion was based around the teacher explaining this dense and ridiculous interpretation of the film as being anti-Christian. He went to great lengths to prove this theory and to boil a wonderful film down to a basic point he believed the auteur was attempting to make, “Reject God and live life.”
I was furious, the conclusions made in this had taken away many of the strong actual points in the film, and boiled it down to one simplistic essence and then labeled it as dangerous. Also, the interpretation was based on huge jumps of logic. The fact is, the discussion never centered on the topics of ideas the Director and Screenwriter had implicitly stated in the news media about why they made the film (a discussion on the ethics of reality television, what is reality in television, and the dangers of perverting someone’s reality by manipulating them for emotions to sell as a product.) No, this was just another example of small minded “I’m going to explain this to you so you can be in on the secret like me.”
To me, these examples strike directly to heart of Sontag’s thesis. And I realize the sorrow and defiant sadness that she speaks with in her essay. Look how we are destroying our art with this bullshit called interpretation! Look at how we devalue the many thoughts and many meanings and many feelings that can fill 2 hours of screen time or 500 pages of print into one over simplified paragraph of “understanding.” How typically American is this? It makes art digestible and sellable and easy to market, however, it steals the art from itself. To me, it is akin to someone asking me to take a symphony and explain the meaning, and then for me to strip out almost all the sections of instruments, save the violin and to have the violin only play its written part, and then to say, “here, now you can understand Beethoven.” How vile of an act is this??
The fact is that Sontag’s voice is one of the few that I have heard on this subject, beyond my own, and I feel like it’s fighting into the wind at the moment. I feel like the pressure is so strongly towards summation by deciphering and simplifying that Sontag, and the voice’s like her, are the lone dissenting voices trying to push a lynch mob back. So, while she and I will fight against this over analytical interpretive nonsense, the mob will walk right by and lynch Hemingway, James Joyce, Steinbeck, and many more all over again, and the will do it while saying how much they love the work. This enterprise is beyond disgusting.
Rachael Harter // June 3, 2008 at 3:18 pm |
“To Criticize art or not to Criticize.” “What is good criticism?” All these articles and readings just continued my grapplings with what art is, how do you criticize it, and do you criticize it all. I am realizing all over again that the more knowledge and perspective one gains in life leads to the realization that they know less than when they started. To believe one knows much reveals that the person in reality has acquired little knowledge. So here I find myself still wrestling with these concepts more and feeling as if some how the more I read on the subject the less I realize that I know. My theories are being challenged and the verdict of my own life theory on the subject of art is still out. I wonder after reading these articles if there is a conclusion. All, for the most part, make good points for their own view and what suits them. “Seeing out Loud” makes the point it made that by nature we are all analytical and critical beings. This is true. To say that there should be no criticism is to separate humanity from the nature that makes it what it is. On the same hand Susan Sontag makes the point, “In most modern instances, interpretation amounts to the philistine refusal to leave the work of art alone. Real art has the capacity to make us nervous. By reducing the work of art to its content and then interpreting that, one tames the work of art. Interpretation makes art manageable, comformable.” (Once again I have come to agree with Rachel) which leads me to feel the same as Sontag. The beauty of art is the pureness/rawness or the art before it is mutilates into fragmented pieces by “interpretation”. Yet we all naturally interpret and critic art…and there is beauty in the transcendence of how art can speak to different people as well. I think the main point (which all articles seemed to touch on) was how one interprets or criticizes art in a correct way. Though I find irony in this as it is pointed out that criticism is an art in itself (as brought up in the book “the crisis of criticism”) and the verdict is still out on what art is and how it should be dealt with. What defines good criticism? How can we define it when humanity is so plagued by egocentrism filtered through ones own life experiences? Does this not define at least in some way the lens one views art as well as life through? In another class of mine the question was posed, “What is black ritual performance?” Is it the color of skin of the performer that automatically deems it as such? Is it the set values and traditions upheld or not upheld that define it? The question was never answered as many people with many life experiences found different answers and different paths to the answers. So I still stand unconvinced, at least at the present moment, that the human expression of art can be defined or interpreted. But it still stands that there will always be critics and critics of critics in the world of art. What deems the criticism to be worthy of notice is ironically still up to the criticism of others.
Samantha H. // June 3, 2008 at 3:53 pm |
Reading these pieces reminded me of someone I read in my Cultural Theories class (I cannot remember his name!), who wrote that the most interesting thing about art or literature, etc., is what it is missing; the unsaid. I think this is true. And here is where I have qualms with Sontag’s argument. This critic wrote that the only way art is near complete is through criticism that surfaces the unsaid, or what lies beneath; and further, for critics to surface what is unsaid in the critique. I don’t see how art can stand alone or can be appreciated fully by looking at (without subjectivity, which, like Saltz, I believe is impossible) the aesthetics. How do we define aesthetic value? And is there not, no matter what the intent of the artist underlying meaning? Two things, I believe that to understand art fully, or even appreciate it, the subjective understanding of the viewer, and criticism of the various understandings, all need to be taken into consideration. Also, I am big on surfacing ideologies that underlie work. I do not think this strips the work of all significance or eloquence, but furthers it. Perhaps Sontag’s piece is somewhat outdated, because today, in the postmodern era, it seems that there is all too much focus on aesthetics and all too little attempts to surface underlying ideologies. No matter how much you try to create a work that attempts to subvert the idea of meaning (which so much of postmodern art does), it is there, inescapable, as I discussed in my post for last class. And what could be more liberating than to surface it. When ideology is surfaced, the critic, the viewer, and perhaps even the artist, may be able to peer outside of “the matrix,” as they call it, and contrary to Sontag’s analysis, I believe that the reality in which we actually live becomes clearer. Surfacing ideologies brings higher understandings of the world around us, which speaks ever so eloquently (or not), through the artist. Personally, I do not believe there is any deep meaning to life, much less art, other than that which human create. Therefore, should we not explore it?
torreyanna // June 3, 2008 at 4:20 pm |
Words on “Seeing Out Loud”
Thank the Good Lord for refreshment. In a world where we are overrun, stressed out, over-stimulated, disgusted and enraptured in a matter of moments it is refreshing to find that simplicity, honesty and authenticity “exist”. I am not speaking about the Introduction to “the Crisis of Criticism”, nor Sontag’s “Against Interpretation” when I speak of this sense of ease. Reading the article, “Seeing Out Loud” by Jerry Saltz was like drinking lemonade after a bike ride. It was like languishing in 8o degree water in 90 degree heat with a cold rum and coke. I feel cooled and comforted by it after reading the other two writings I mentioned.
He wrote things that scared me. He wrote about artists I will look up after I write this response. He mentioned ideas that seemed new and fresh. He noted that our opinions are tools we can use for expanding our consciousness, or in other words, for changing and growing our opinions. This idea gives freedom to the individual to learn from their own interpretations of what they are viewing, reading, experiencing, thinking about.
Of course I don’t think my view is an unpopular one. I know that human beings have a need to individualize, to be unique, to feel that they are special and one of a kind, that their opinion should matter the most to them personally, above the opinion of anyone else on the planet. I also understand that in order to form my own opinion I have been aided and swayed by the opinions of others and have learned that my own personal style of seeing requires more feeling than thinking and an immediacy of reaction vs. too much time lapse between the experience and my forming an opinion about it. I love to talk to others about what they think about something, but usually still want to experience the thing for myself, and really, I’d rather talk to you about something AFTER I have seen it as well. I still want to see Indiana Jones even though my lover declined my invitation because he “heard it was really bad”. I don’t care what he heard.
In Saltz’s article he admits to being “un-educated”, to not knowing what “de-skilled” means and presents his own personal thoughts and interpretations anyway. He said that a good critic must “be un-afraid to write from parts of themselves they don’t really know they have”. Ah, cool, crisp, refreshment for my parched brain! For, who “really knows” anything?
At the same time I loved and hated his insistence on negative criticism, for one because I am afraid of negative criticism of my own art and because I, despite my fear, believe in honesty being one of the best teachers there is.
All of the rhetoric and cogitation of the two previous articles have been wiped away by this third, raw, real, almost “blue-collar” or simple article that Jerry Saltz wrote, and wrote so eloquently. I, despite my effort to let things just be what they are, have interpreted meanings from his writing that have inspired me to create more and better art, have reminded me of certain core values I possess and have given me extra permission (besides my own) to be who I am, do what I do, write what I think and fuck all the rest, because it’s my life and I am invested in living it my way…despite, but not in defiance of, what others might possibly think.
Isabel // June 3, 2008 at 4:46 pm |
Even while I agreed with most of the claims within Sontag’s piece, I was left feeling suspicious of her. As an art student who is often paralyzed by the weight of art theory, canons, and authoritative art criticisms, I found her ideas to be very liberating. The first thing that made me skeptical was the sensational title “Against Interpretation”–but mostly I objected to how harshly she condemned the critics. She fires a ruthless arsenal of insults at them: poison, violating, reactionary, impertinent, cowardly, stifling. Maybe the aggression is appropriate; perhaps there needs to be a violent objection to provoke a change in the way we see art. But I felt like she was demonizing the critics themselves, rather than appreciating that they are a product of the way our whole society operates. As our society changes (and it will) so will the methods of criticism and evaluation of art.
I felt most comfortable with Berger’s introduction to The Crisis of Criticism, probably because it was more of an open survey of the state of art criticism rather than a hard hitting assertion like Sontag’s and Saltz’s pieces. Berger doesn’t shy away from stating his own opinions and they often line up with those of Sontag and Saltz. But he also takes into consideration this crisis of criticism. Our culture is becoming more and more decentralized which diminishes the ability and authority of the critic to be a decisive gauge of quality. There has never been a constant set of values by which to judge art, yet as humans we need to process things somehow in order to understand them. I think the bottom line of these three articles is that we have gotten to the point of over-processing. Theory, history, and critics aren’t bad but they aren’t always relevant to the art. We are so obsessed with the wealth of information available to us, we have come to trust it more than our own senses.
Nate // June 3, 2008 at 4:56 pm |
To me, there is no good critic. Everyone has their own opinion about everything, so how can we justify the publication of art critics who guide the masses into an art gallery or a movie premiere? Sontag would submit that the public loves to hear (read, whatever) the interpretation of the art because they want to recall and relive the feelings that the piece inspire; whereas Saltz would say that most critics are too “mystical” in their reviews, confusing the audience with long words and wordy essays. I agree mainly with Saltz and his view’s on today’s critics, insofar as to say that most critics review everything in the same way as their colleagues did in another blog, and that many of them have no “eye”. Anyone can write a love song, but it takes more than just cheesy words and a catchy hook to do it. I agree with Saltz as well, on what art means to the individual, “Art is a way of thinking, a way of knowing yourself.” I could not have said it better myself, just because one person feels the pain of a picture and someone else doesn’t does not mean that the latter opinion is wrong or unintelligible. Sontag disagrees with this, suggesting that an “interpretation” is a rearranging of ingredients, not to be trusted because she believed that the interpretation was trying to deconstruct the work of art in a “bass-aackwards” kind of way (believing that the interpretation is trying to say that X is Y and Z is now J, in other words, replacing one fact with another and calling it by its former definition, which is just crazy. However, Maurice Berger has another view on the roll of the critic, and it is not one of interpretation or self-pleasure. Berger talks about the critic writing for the sheer act of promotion, in the ranks of their office and among their colleagues. She sites that Arlene Croce commented on how, “she cannot, ‘remember a time when the critic has seemed more expendable than now,’ it is the artist and his wayward ‘political’ agendas that she ultimately blames.” (pg. 12) I’d have to agree with her on that one, I really can’t trust anyone’s opinion anymore, I’ve had friends tell me that I would love such-and-such movie and I didn’t. So who do you trust? How can you know if a gallery event is going to be worth your while unless you go to each one yourself? You have to trust the critics. They are paid to go to the stupid movies and let people know about how well it was lit or how terrible the dialogue was, and then you can go and decide for yourself, and write about it on a blog, where other people may read and learn from it.
Ashley // June 3, 2008 at 5:04 pm |
My thoughts are all over the place when it comes to interpretation, and reading that interpretation started as a way to make art more acceptable has even boggled my mind more. Knowing that it started in a way as a deception of other people’s truths. This beginning of interpretation makes me very much against it. And not just its beginnings but what interpretation is today. I agree with Sontag, interpretation has brought a lot of problems to the art world. For one those works of art that were created by artists to be facts where later interpreted to be about ideas and thoughts and metaphors. Then there are people who just spend all their time tearing apart a piece of art interpreting every aspect of it until it is no longer art. I hear these people when I go to museums and I want to say what Sontag is saying “leave the art alone,” but I don’t I just roll my eyes and move on as they continue to bore whoever the hell they are talking to. Anyway I can see why Sontag stands were he stands, interpretation takes people away from the art and the artists, it makes the art at times no longer art or sometimes just leaves it in pieces.
But there is a however, I think at times interpretation can help art. Some artist do make art that is meant to be interpreted, in the film world for example this is common with all the horrible Hollywood films there are artists who want to step out of the standard Hollywood formula and give their audiences something to think about, they make there audience get more involved in the art and thus making them even more attached to the film. I myself for example went to a standard Hollywood film the other day I saw some film with Vegas in the title I don’t know what the hell that shit was called but it had Cameron Diaz and Ashton Kutcher in it, I think it was called “Only in Vegas” I could be wrong anyway I saw the film somewhat enjoyed it though I cant remember a thing about it now and when I left the theatre that film left my life. Then I saw “Sisters” by Brian De Palma a film that was created to interpret things, and look already you can see the evidence that interpreting the film created a connection to the film for me. I for one remember the title of this film, secondly I even know the directors name. But that’s not it when the film was over I interpreted different meanings but there were still some things I didn’t understand but still I enjoyed it. Later on with a friend we discussed the film and our interpretations of different symbols, actions, scenes and I realized that while having the discussion the things I didn’t understand became clear to me and the directors vision was even stronger which made the connection I already had to the film grow. In this case interpretation helped not just mine but also my friends.
So there you have it I really have no idea where to stand, I guess interpretation works well for some and not for others or well for some art and not for other arts.
Oh and p.s. I guess that film was called “What Happens in Vegas”
Jordan // June 3, 2008 at 5:17 pm |
Sontag says in “Against Interpretation” that “In most modern instances, interpretation amounts to the philistine refusal to leave the work of art alone. Real art has the capacity to make us nervous. By reducing the work of art to its content and then interpreting that, one tames the work of art. Interpretation makes art manageable, comformable. ” I agree with her to an extent. I think what she is trying to say is that all these intellectual artsy types often interpret art so much into what it should mean, or they think it should me, that they in fact, change the art. She goes on to say that such interpretation makes art manageable. She gives the example of “A Streetcar Named Desire” which is a movie I really enjoyed. Instead of just a story about “handsome brute Stanley” and “faded mangy belle named Blanche Du Bois”, the interpretation was the decline of Western civilization. Now I have not seen this movie since I was probably about 12 years old, and I know I didnt get that out of it. So in some instances, I think, interpretation is a good thing, but other times not.
According to Staltz, the main problem with art criticism today is that most critics do not come out of their comfort zone. He points out that critics only praise what they see or describe it, which sells everyone short. He also says that critics should make their opinions know, or at least good critics. I definitely agree with this. If I am reading a review, and get merely a description, i feel like I’ve wasted my time because I do not know what the critic thought. Does anybody ever watch the foodnetwork? On some shows, someone travels around to different places, checking out restaurants, pubs, etc. I have NEVER seen any of the hosts say “EW, I didnt like this salad!” or whatever it is they may be tasting. They always eat it, and with a huge grin on their face, tell us how delicious it is. To me that is such bs. Be truthful, I know food isnt exactly a painting, but still, I like to know if a restaurant is good or not by a real critic, not someone paid to say something positive.
nantzyjo // June 3, 2008 at 5:31 pm |
After reading the assignments and the previous blog entries, I envisioned my brain as a pair of hands reaching into space trying to grasp the translucent mist of differing ideas and comments. (I now have a headache.) I whole-heartedly agreed with Rachel H. when she said she was “grappling with what art is, how do you criticize it, and do you criticize it all.” I’ll be honest, I confess my confusion. I will read something, understand what I believe to be the point, and then read something later on by somebody with a DIFFERING opinion, and agree there, too! It’s very frustrating to me and I find myself asking, “don’t you have a definitive opinion?” That being said, I came back to something that Saltz wrote that really resonated with me, “Opinions are tools for listening in on your thinking and expanding consciousness…. The most interesting critics make their opinions known.” That comment is pretty scary for someone that just admitted to having trouble coming up with definitive opinions about these readings… I’ve never had trouble giving my opinion before and am pretty lippy, naturally. I can only trust that when faced with reviewing “art” that I won’t have trouble being silent, but I don’t want to reduce someone’s art, their effort, love and struggle, to something that conforms to an idea of what art should be, just to make me feel better. Sontag states, “Real art has the capacity to make us nervous. By reducing the work of art to its content and then interpreting that, one tames the work of art. Interpretation makes art manageable, comformable.” I can understand trying to make art understandable, buy I don’t think it HAS to be manageable, or conformable.
Laura // June 3, 2008 at 5:42 pm |
I agree with Samantha here, when I read, in Sontags piece, her views on art’s “assault by interpretation, I found myself again and again wincing in uncertainty to the authoritative declarations being made. Though I agree with the idea of extending our artistic scope to the capacity at which aesthetic value can still come into play, I have a hard time sitting idly by while Sontag urges us to relax on content-emphasis.
“Abstract painting is the attempt to have, in the ordinary sense, no content; since there is no content, there can be no interpretation.” When reading this statement, I found myself literally questioning the very validity of Sontag’s views, whatsoever. In assuming that abstract and modern art is contentless, Sontag is brushing off every artist who ever tried to express themselves through an abstract medium. To create or think abstractly is not to exist in a realm void of content and meaning, it is to convey content that reaches beyond our society’s current constructs of language and imagery. Abstract art, to me, should contain even more content than that of its more realistic brethren. Not to mention the amount of interpretative potential grows exponentially when one does not have the crutch of pre-existing language or imagery to rely on to think for them. “Once upon a time (a time when high art was scarce), it must have been a revolutionary and creative move to interpret works of art. Now it is not. What we decidedly do not need now is further to assimilate Art into Thought, or (worse yet) Art into Culture.” Did anyone else find this statement offsetting or offensive? Sontags condescending language alone discredits her as an open minded and thoughtful author in this piece. In this phrase, she is first devaluing art of the past and second edging frighteningly close to directing her readers to think less critically about art and the world around them. She poo-poos the notion that art thought and culture should exist on the same plane, and in doing so discourages the progressive line that current art is undoubtedly following.
My final complaint with Susan Sontag is her contradictory and counterproductive views on not only the art world, but also the society of today. “…the effusion of interpretations of art today poisons our sensibilities. In a culture whose already classical dilemma is the hypertrophy of the intellect at the expense of energy and sensual capability, interpretation is the revenge of the intellect upon art.” It seems to me, here, that Sontag is literally trying to deter critically thinking people from being thoughtful and aware of the world. I mean, I get that she hates dualism, I get that she scoffs at intellectuals and theorists, but aside from insult, Sontag is writing off the very concept of intelligent art and intelligent art-viewing. I do applaud her for condemning intellectual classism, but one must be careful in doing this, as a reader could confuse the high vs. low art discussion for that of one less humanitarian in nature, one that discourages art viewers to think not only about the work they are viewing, but also about the feelings the work evokes, and the societal constructs that are perhaps playing a role in said feelings.
Art is a medium that we can use to exercise our critical and creative thinking, and I vehemently protest the concept of removing content and replacing it with an imposing emphasis on aesthetics alone.
Laura // June 5, 2008 at 5:52 pm |
On the first day of class I had an initially fleeting thought that has since been resonating, as I never brought it up or discussed it with anyone. Jeanette Winterson beat me to the punch, and at first I felt that sinking discouragement tied to intellectual property and pride, but then quickly recovered in my realization that this is the first time in this class that I have so much enjoyed the writer being presented, and beyond that felt a significant level of empathy and agreement. Finally someone was hitting the point about appreciating art from a standpoint inclusive of content, context, and aesthetic connection.
The fleeting thought I spoke of, was more extreme in nature than Winterson’s views on art in our current socio-economic age, however I am not an established writer and therefore have complete literary license to say whatever I feel like. “It may be that Capitalism will be as successful with art as it has been with religion; absorb it to the point of neutrality.”, this struck a chord in me, obviously triggering the recollection of my original thought which was in response to the moment in class when Kristin asked who among us considered themselves writers, and hardly anyone raised their hand. It was at this point I realized that art really doesn’t have a succinct place for itself in capitalism, and therefore the artist must find a way to incorporate their artistic validity into the pre-defined constructs of the system. As established, the general consciousness surrounding the concept of “being an artist” is shackled by the underlying feeling of the need to be outwardly validated as such. How is occupational identity formed in this country? Do you get paid for it? If not, then chances are you’re not considered whatever you’re calling yourself. Therefore, artists in our society don’t always feel like or identify themselves as artists when there is nothing on their resume to confirm them as such. Because of this, art is only more and more being regarded as just another industry, and I don’t think I have to detail the frightening implications behind that.