Thesis Response
8/29/11
Susan Sontag’s “Against Interpretation” talks about the Greek theory, mimesis, in which art is viewed as an imitation of reality, challenging art to justify its self.
Plato, who believes the imitations are useless, could view our work as falsely valued due to imitations on top on imitations, things that could never be used.
Aristotle’s view is much more like my own in saying that art may have some sort of true value when it come to the therapy it may provide to those who evoke emotion and sensitive to the works, as creator or observer.
There is an assumption when it comes to art that it is always figurative, and as humans we tend to relate form back to content, defending the works of art that may only purge forms and shapes wish no actual intention. We make sense of all this on our own, or we seek a reason why these things are arranged the way they are. These questions and justifications arise to the content, which tames the art to a more manageable understanding between form and content. In today’s modern paintings we see that interpretation may not always be used. Abstract and decorative art dismiss the idea of interpretation becoming non-art or just plan uninterruptible. Susan refers to the idea of pop-art, it is what it is. No further investigations needed. Relating back to Plato’s view on the uselessness of imitations, Andy Warhol’s soup cans, I remember feeling this exact way, why stress on making such a straightforward image, why spend the time to say only nothing but what we already see in today’s world? Is this the irony I’m not completely grasping? Call me closed minded but I can’t help but agree with Plato’s ideas of the mimesis theory. Although I am completely drawn to esthetics I have a hard time ignoring just what I should be getting out of a work I maybe viewing or studying. How can I create with no purpose? And would I work as hard on it if there were only the esthetic drive to do so? The differences between creator and on looker is interpretation. What we intend to say as the creator, and how we digest the imagery given to us, are two very separate levels of the art. The consideration of these two ideas makes up the content in which we choose as artists.
Michel Foucault’s “What is an Author” was hard for me to understand, but my want to understand is what got me through this reading. I’m interested in these ideas of the voice and how its projected on to the work. The consequences of interpretation also factor deep into how the authors bias opinions are put.
