In this blog we will be exploring the ideas presented in the quote presented above. We hope to show how interpretation has the tendency to lessen art and to force the reader/viewer to contemplate the implications of this. Why do we interpret? What is the point of interpretation? how do we change the artist's intentions to fit our own wants? How do form and content interact with one another when interpretating art? What is lost when art is reduced to only its content and its interpretation? Does the artist's intentions have any bearing on our interpretations? Do multiple interpretations of the same work mean art it is unmanageable? Is interpretation necessary to enjoy art?

By posing these questions we hope to cause the reader/viewer to question their motivations for interpretation and to help them to view art in its purest form.

Artist Gary Setzer Shares Theories of Art

Gary Setzer is a local artist who is an Assistant Art Professor at the University of Arizona. He kindly gave his time to sit down with us to answer some questions about interpretation, art, and the successes he has had in teaching this complicated subject.

We would highly suggest the readers of this blog to look up information about Gary Setzer. Due to copyright issues, we are not able to put his work directly onto this website. But Setzer displayed his show entitled Gary Setzer: Homonymous Confusion of Planes, 2007 last autumn at the University of Arizona museum. The artist is on YouTube under this title, discussing this performance art, and everything this artist has to say in this video is worth listening to. He is currently in London showing his artwork.

In your years of teaching, how do you think the majority of your students feel about interpretation?
-I teach mostly freshmen, and they tend to view art as subjective. They seem to embrace the idea of interpretation and the idea of leaving it open. Though, going through art school makes the artist more specific with content. They will limit interpretation to a degree, I mean the further along they are as an artist the better they will be at conveying the point.

What, if anything, do you intend when you make your art?
-Actually, a lot of my work deals with interpretation. I suppose my main themes have dealt with Semiotics, Phenomenology, and Hermeneutics.

How do you feel about interpretation (both in general and of your own work)?
-Well, it's something I can't really control, especially as a younger artists, I would embrace and enjoy it. There is an art for everyone. Whether it is the Mona Lisa or something less traditional, people will come to it and put their own experience on it. History can change the way we see art, but there is no right way. I think there is art that is made just for artists, and there is art made for the public.

If someone interpreted your work the wrong way, how would you feel?
-If can inform me of something that I was not conscious of before. It would make me rethink the way I'm trying to convey my art, but I wouldn't take it personally.

When you give an Abstract Art assignment to your class, what do you expect from your students? What if they gave you the assignment for the grade, and you could not see their intention? How does the grading work with this?
-I expect my students to take risks. Each project is graded with a rubric, so the students should be attempting to manage those specific point. I can't grade to my taste; there have been some pieces that I personally did not like very much but still received an A, while there have been some pieces which I like a lot but received a D. I grade on overall affect given the success the artist had conveying their intention.

Do you think interpretation has a negative or a positive affect on art?
-It can do both. I like analysis, and I don't like analysis. I don't like when certain trends bend towards a "yes" or a "no." Art is more organic than that.

When does art become less personal and more commercial?
-I think that's a blurry line today. Art in galleries is somewhat a part of the commercial world. And art on TV is all commercial. Any walk of art will have a commercial value on it, and I don't see anything totally evil about it.

What is art?
-I still don't have an answer for that, and I never will. Art is a continuous investigation . Once we define it, art will try to escape that definition.

Miscellaneous Conversation with Gary Setzer:
-The lower level arrt classes are more steeped and grounded; it is art in the making and the context for the making. In lower levels we teach skill points that are necessary for a career. Not because that's what "good" art is, we just try to give a good vocabulary. The learning of art is a creative challenge, kind of like an obstacle course (though a little less "military"). A lot of the schooling is showing the students the standard, which they can work past in their careers, or they may not.

We also got the chance to talk with some of Setzer's lower-level students (this is presented later in the website). Through this conversation we can see that interpretation plays a huge part in art, especially for the artist. If you thought there was a great deal to be considered when merely viewing a work of art, imagine being the person who created it. An idea is born, and the true artist is able to put that idea into some sort of visual presentation. But what happens to the artist when that idea is misinterpreted, and we are left with a refreshing idea: that which Sontag would call art that has been "left alone...and untamed."

University of Arizona Artists Reveal Art and Ideas

We sat in on one of Gary Setzer's art classes to talk with true University of Arizona student artists to really get the scoop on the other side of viewing art work.

One artist who we were particularly moved by was Lauren Pascuzzo, who made the following abstract artwork:


Lauren used the people from her dance class as the main inspiration from this piece. She asked them what their favorite type of dance was, and which colors they associate with that dance. She then chose items that best represent each type of dance, took up-close pictures of the items, and made them unrecognizable by editing them on the computer. After doing this she created twelve shapes that flowed together to make an interesting composition. Finally she painted the distorted picture along with the color(s) that the dancers gave her to each of the twelve shapes.
*This information was paraphrased from Pascuzzo's own Content Summary (2008) about the artwork

1. What, if anything, do you intend when you make your art?

"I want the art to be interpreted in the way I see it. I wanted to convey the feeling of movement, without them really knowing what they were seeing." -Lauren Pascuzzo

Lluvia Creek is another University of Arizona artist who was willing to share her artwork with us:


Lluvia used two different groups of employees as inspiration to create this artwork. She wanted to convey how each person felt at the end of the day, and she did this by using ink blots and a series of questions and either-or choices:
1. Choose a number between 5 and 10.
-This would determine how many ink drops she would use to create their ink blot
2. What is your favorite color?
3. What is your favorite number?
-Both of these questions would help the artist pick out a color and manipulate the color for their ink blot.
4. Choose either right or left (this has nothing to do with the hand you write with)
-This would determine which way the artist would travel on the color wheel, which was the opposite of the direction they chose. If the subject chose left and they said their favorite number was 6, she would travel 6 color slots to the right, and that would be the color of their ink blot.
5. Tell me what you see in your ink blot in relation to how you feel right now.
-With this question the artist would allow the subjects to see their ink blots for ten seconds, and describe how they were feeling with only one word.
The artist compiled all of the subjects' information by blowing them up and cropping sections to create the layout of the painting. The artist enjoyed making this piece because she learned how, at times, the painting itself would tell her what to do next.
*This information was paraphrased from Creek's own Content Summary (2008) about the artwork

"Art grows from feelings, whether it’s happy or sad or whatever, I think people will see that in art. If I can convey how I’m feeling it’s perfect art." -Lluvia Creek

The interesting connection with forming art by using ink blots. In doing this, the artist has found a new way to draw inspiration and enlightenment from ink blots. The blog about Interpretation discusses the science of Ink Blots, and how this is a form of backwards interpretation, it is art determining the person, not the other way around. Lluvia Creek has found a way to harness Ink Blots in a way, and make them into something beautiful.

Jeff Cole is another University of Arizona artist who was willing to share his artwork with us:

Jeff focused on the elements of music for this painting. The artist asked ten friends about this topic, asking questions like what they first paid attention to when they listen to a song and which part of a song is their favorite or the most important. Their answers would range from bass, drum pattern, lyrical flow, and beat pattern. After talking with them, the artist would asked his subjects to draw what they thought the element they chose would look like it if was rendered on a piece of paper. The artist then compiled all of these figures onto his painting. He chose these colors to show an energy and intensity in the artwork against a black background. The artist commented that he wanted to marks to be so abstract that the viewer would not be able to tell the artwork was about the elements of music. *This was paraphrased from Jeff Cole's own Content Summary (2008) about this artwork.

1. What if we were to just take art as it is? Do you think this would improve or dampen the “experience of art”?

I think that it’s like that already. Anyone can put out artwork, and that’s positive. One can never know the artist’s influences, we can see that the ideas are endless.
Art is an endless word; it will go on forever, it will change and evolve. -Jeff Cole

By reviewing the artists' own words about their artwork, one can see what artwork is like before the act of interpretation is placed on the artwork. This art has not been "tamed" or made to fit the viewers' needs and wants. What we have here is pure, unadulterated art with the true artists' points of view. There is no need to interpret this art to make the viewer feel more comfortable-for the viewer has everything they need to know already.

Kahlo's Inspiration

An artist that most of us should be familiar with is Frida Kahlo; her art has become world renowned. The story of Kahlo's life and her unique style within her works has been an inspiration for artist's around the globe and a source of interest to art aficionados everywhere. What makes her paintings even more interesting is how they resist interpretation across many levels. In spite of the charged imagery throughout most of her paintings coupled with intense visuals which could send the imagination spiraling, it is nonetheless difficult to pull apart her paintings in order to find a meaning that is readily available to all. Due to the tragedy and pain of her life that she continually expressed throughout her work as well as her own explanations of her works, it is slightly obvious as to what her works mean. She left no room for estranged meaning. Her art can only be understood within the context of her life and legacy. When one makes the effort to find the source of her work and the misfortune that she suffered her works make sense. This demonstrates that in many cases it is possible that art is composed of only a very specific, certain meaning. This meaning is completely dependent upon the artist. When the meaning is dependent upon the artist than it becomes futile to attempt to interpret anything at all.

Pablo Picasso: Form vs. Content

Pablo Picasso is a well known artist who revolutionized the art world with his innovation in Cubism. As such, his most famous paintings are Cubist in nature. However, Picasso went through several stages with his artwork and constantly changed his style of painting.

With each successive painting ask yourself: What is depicted? Is it immediately recognizable? How does the thing depicted effect me emotionally? What connection do I have to it? Do these questions become harder to answer as Picasso moves away from realistic content into more form-based art? Do I feel a desire to inflict my own interpretation on the painting? Is this desire stronger for the earlier, content-based paintings or for the form-based paintings? Why do I think this is?

Now ask yourself this: What colors does Picasso use? How does he form his lines? What lighting is used? What patterns are used and where? How does this effect me emotionally? Intellectually? Furthermore, can I separate form from content?


Picasso, Pablo. Garcon a la Pipe. 1905.


Picasso, Pablo. Guernica. 1937. Prado Museum, Madrid.


Picasso, Pablo. Still Life. 1924.


Picasso, Pablo. Three Musicians. 1921.


Picasso, Pablp. Le Pichet Noir Et La Tete De Mort. 1946


Picasso, Pablo. The Guitar Player. 1911.

Susan Sontag says that "By 
reducing the work of art to its content and then interpreting that, one tames 
the work of art." Is this what we want--to tame art just so we feel comfortable with it? Sontag also believes that "What is needed is a vocabulary-a descriptive, rather than a prescriptive, vocabulary-for forms." That is what I am trying to accomplish with this post. I want the reader to try and separate form and content and to find new ways of describing art on the level of form. When we focus on form rather than content we learn to see the art for what it is, rather than what we think it is or what we want it to mean. For this entry I decided not to place my own narrative on the paintings and instead allowed the viewer to explore and create his/her own thoughts on content, form and interpretation. However, for examples of how focusing on content rather than form can degrade a work of art see these entries on Georgia O' Keeffe's "Red Canna," T.S. Eliot's "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock, and Leonardo Da Vinci's "Mona Lisa."

What's in an Eye?

A form of art that avoids interpretation and may have been created for the sake of completely rendering it impossible is that of abstract art. It becomes very difficult to interpret the content of a work when it has been created with no specific content whatsoever. One can no longer reduce it to the level that makes it

workable and thus interpretable. The artist leaves no back door for the audience to escape through in order to force the viewer into a corner that prevents him or her from sapping the maximum possible

content out of the art for the pure sake of interpretation alone. Understanding the piece is no longer about squeezing the last bit of content out of it as a means to enjoy it. Any meaning is abstruse and inconcrete, allowing the viewer to rely on his sense of sight to appreciate the art for what it is, without turning it into what it is not. Abstract art is able to keep its distance from us because we are unable to give it representational value that corresponds to our own subjective ideas.

Interpretation is not necessary to enjoy art. In many if not all cases, art is created and founded upon its visual appeal that is hinged on our sense of sight. If you stare closer at the piece of abstract art below, perhaps you will notice that there is something extraordinarily unique about it. Put the image right up to your nose to the point that it is blurry. Than focus your eyes as if you were looking through the image into the distance. Slowly, move away from the image, and the hidden content to these works will magically appear. There are hidden 3D images within the depth of this work. The artist saves the audience the disappointment of coming up with an interpretation that conflicts with the artist's intended meaning. This is art with a purpose. It is art that relies on the eyes and not the mind. Don't constrict the meaning and allow it to elude you by lessening the art through interpretation. It isn't necessary with this piece because the meaning is there for the taking.

The Rorschach Inkblot Tests

The world-renowned Rorschach Inkblots were originally created by Hermann Rorschach in 1921 to assess patients' reflex hallucinations, not their mental stability. After his death it was adapted to gauge an individual's likelihood of having such mental issues as psychosis. There are a total of ten ink blots which are given to the patient in a certain specific order. The individual is then asked to describe what they see in the blots and what particular portions (the color, shape, etc.) cause them to do so. Not only are subjects expected to find some meaning in each of the ten inkblots, but they are "urged to see more than one percept per blot with queries such as 'Anything else?'" The fundamental idea behind this test is that "objective meaning can be extracted from responses to blots of ink that are supposedly meaningless." In other words, the patient, or interpreter, is given the task of interpreting the uninterpretable. The psychologist overseeing this test must in turn interpret the patients answers in order to come to a conclusion about his or her mental state. But, as one writer on this subject queried, "who is to interpret the therapist's interpretation? Another therapist? Then, who will interpret his?" Many other flaws in this method of assessment are continually pointed out by members of the so-called psychological community. One such discrepancy is that "the response 'bra' was considered a 'sex' response by male psychologists but a 'clothing' response by females." Such inconsistencies account for the growing sentiment among psychologists that the Rorschach tests should not be used as the sole basis for a patients' diagnosis, let alone as evidence in custody battles and the like.

In light of Sontag's quote, ink blot tests force the interpreter to reduce the ink blots to solely their content and then to interpret that. In other words, according to Santag, they are "making the work more manageable" or "taming" it. Consider the fact that the viewer is never given the option of saying they see nothing in the blot. Consider what might happen if the patient states that quite frankly they see blots of ink smeared on a piece of card stock. This might be construed by the presiding psychologist as a refusal to fully engage in the procedure. Some might even go so far as to conclude agressive or antisocial tendencies. In fact, it might be said that the ink blots in turn interpret the viewer (with the help of the interpreting psychologist, of course).


Here, the reader of this post should ask himself what makes ink blots fundamentally different from any other piece of abstract art where the viewer is encouraged (whether by the artist or by society and the viewer's peers) to interpret what they see, such as many of those explored in other posts. Should the viewer of a Pollock accept it as paint splattered onto a canvas, or find some deep meaning behind the piece?

According to Sontag, the former is the most appropriate course of action to take with regards to abstract pieces. As haphazard interpretation is viewed as a "refusal to leave a work of art alone," Sontag would say that the viewer of an abstract piece, whether a Pollock or a Rorschach, should be examined only at face value: the paint on the canvas or the ink on the card and nothing more.


If you would like to learn more about the Rorschach inkblot tests and how they are administered, you may want to visit this website:
Please read the initial disclaimer, however, before deciding to read the article.

What were The Beatles singing about?

Some may think of it as their favorite song. For others it may remind them of a time when Civil Rights, Feminism, and Anti-War movements were at their peak while tied together in the multi-colored bow symbolizing Peace. But what has become a more popular belief about The Beatle’s Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds from their 1967 album Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band is that the song is an acronym for the culturally popular drug of the time period: LSD. LSD is commonly known as “Acid,” though some will call it a psychedelic, but for The Beatles it may be more appropriate to call it “inspiration.”

But what is less commonly known about his song is that it was not brought on or even inspired by LSD, but by John Lennon’s, a member of the band, son. Lennon’s son Julian came home from his nursery school one day with a picture to show his father. When Lennon asked his son what the picture was of, Julian’s response was, “Lucy—In the Sky with Diamonds.” The girl “Lucy” that Julian was referring to was a classmate of his, which he later admitted to having something of a childhood crush on.

Lennon was so moved by his son’s response that it inspired him immediately to write the song about Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds.

The public made what they wanted to from this song, they craved some sort of scandal or irony from the band, and so fans dwelled on this mere coincidence and took it as an assumed double meaning. The true story of the origin of this song comes from a tender moment between a father and son, and the art of pure, unexpected poetry.

Had their fans taken the song for what it truly meant, The Beatles’ Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds may have affected people in a vastly different way. This is most definitely not the only time this has occurred in the art world. In this blog we also discuss Georgia O'Keeffe's artwork, and how the art community imposed their own belief and urges onto her artwork. This drastically changed the way we saw and felt about her artwork, and the same imposition happened to this song. We only heard what we wanted to here, or as Sontag would say, we tamed the work of art to make it manageable and comformable.

Information for this blog can be found
here

What We Created in the Work of Georgia O'Keeffe

This is one of Georgia O'Keeffe's most famous paintings. It is titled simply "Red Canna" after the strikingly beautiful red flowers of which they are an artistic representation. This is arguably one of the most recognizable pieces of art in America, as the artist is particularly well known, especially throughout the South West where she gathered much of her inspiration which is evident upon viewing much of her works.

When faced with this piece in class discussion, it became impossible to separate it from anything else than sexual imagery. "Vagina flowers," as it was so bluntly put. How could anyone not catch on as easily as our class to what these flowers truly represented? It is easy to see the flesh like tones, and assign anatomical classifications to the various parts composing the flower. This interpretation was seen as so obvious that there was no debate on the issue.

There were indeed several students who did not associate this image with that specific part of the female body. This is due to several different reasons. Either they had never seen this image before and had not been subject to the imposing views of others or an even simpler reason is that they did not have their mind in the gutter. They did not jump immediately to the sexual conclusion and instead looked at them as beautiful, vibrant flowers. This is a testament to how ideas can spread like wildfire and can lead one to believe that people will jump on the band wagon of interpretation for the sake of feeling comfortable among their peers. It became easier to see this image as what the bulk of the interpreters believed because it leads to less discomfort among them by creating a common belief upon which all can agree. Being different promotes too much discord and in the end it is easier to agree than disagree and fall subject to the opinions of others than stick to one's own.

Georgia O'Keeffe said herself, "Nobody sees a flower, really, it is so small. We haven't time - and to see takes time like to have a friend takes time.

If I could paint the flower exactly as I see it no one would see what I see because I would paint it small like the flower is small. So I said to myself - I'll paint what I see - what the flower is to me but I'll paint it big and they will be surprised into taking time to look at it - I will make even busy New Yorkers take time to see what I see of flowers.

...Well, I made you take time to look at what I saw and when you took time to really notice my flower you hung all your own associations with flowers on my flower and you write about my flower as if I think and see what you think and see of the flower - and I don't."



Word for word, O'Keeffe refutes all the sexual interpretation of her work. She simply portrays the glory of an object simple enough to overlook on a daily basis, but one of the most complex in beauty within the natural world. It is a reproduction of her experience in nature, and the true meaning of this work is directly related to that. Its meaning has no footing in the audience's beliefs but took its essence from the bright colors and marvelous form that makes nature so enticing in the first place.

Realizing the truth behind this art, it is important to reflect upon what is lost when interpretations are made. The artist did not intend for any interpretation, she merely wanted to share an often overlooked beauty that deserved more attention. What does this piece of art lose, when we move beyond that, and lose respect for the essence of the flower and what it can offer us when we associate it with imagery that if blown up and put right in front of our faces would be considered offensive and taboo?

What is the Mona Lisa?

What does this image mean to you? What is the first thing you think of when you see that famous smile and those striking eyes? Do you feel moved in a certain way? Are you touched on any artistic level? Or do you immediately jump to the harsh, restricting lines of the mysterious and unknown content of this work?

The Mona Lisa is one of Leonardo Da Vinci’s most famous works, and yet we know very little factual information about the woman who posed for this portrait. For literally hundreds of years we have questioned the purpose of this piece of artwork, and even after several tests and technologically advanced examinations of the Mona Lisa, we still have a hard time producing any definite answers.

Cracking the code of the Mona Lisa has become a multi-million dollar business lately. There have been best-selling novels and popular feature-length films, thus further devaluing the work of art as it is, and making this painting more into an icon to represent a certain ideal. A group called Spy ‘n Buy has recently found what they believe to be the face of Jesus Christ in the Mona Lisa. This is done buy overlapping the portrait and lining up the eyes.

It has been argued that the Mona Lisa is a self-portrait Da Vinci created in order to portray himself as a woman. Research and analysis by Dr. Lillian F. Schwartz shows that the faces of a self-portrait by Da Vinci and the Mona Lisa line up using digital scanning to reverse and overlay the portraits. The facial features match perfectly, so one could assume that Mona Lisa is not actually a woman at all, but Da Vinci’s portrayal of himself as a woman.

Here we can see an artist bomb out a replica of the Mona Lisa in less than three hours, keep in mind that it took Da Vinci years and years to complete this work, and some say that he never did get the chance to finish it completely.

This painting has become one of the most famous and symbolic paintings in the world, yet one has to wonder why. What was so mysterious about this particular work that caused the world to throw it into such scrutinous speculation? Why must we define this particular work as a political or meaningful statement? While there are some very interesting aspects to this work, we will never truly know the meaning and motivation for Da Vinci to make this portrait. Yet we continue to search for answers, so we may be more comfortable with this artwork. This is very unlike other classical works of art, such as that of Frida Kahlo (discussed earlier in the blog). We take Kahlo's work for what it is, very little interpretations or accusations of meaning are placed onto her artwork, yet we are still able to learn from it. It is interesting that we are not able to do this for the Mona Lisa as well.

It would seem that every time we discover something new about the Mona Lisa we are left with even more questions. Let us stop the over-interpretation of this famous artwork and let it be. Susan Sontag would say that we are lessening the power of this art by imposing so many question and hinging so many beliefs onto it. We must see past the interpretations and take it for what it is; let us finally leave the Mona Lisa alone.

Research for this blog can be found at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mona_Lisa

Interview With BFA Undergrad Samantha

The following interview was conducted with Samantha, a BFA undergraduate student at the University of Arizona who is majoring in Studio Art and Art Education. The questions asked were meant to elicit her opinion with regards to the many controversial issues touched on in Sontag's quote. This interview is also meant to provide the reader with a more informed opinion on interpretation in the real world as opposed to those generated theoretically by individuals unfamiliar with art.

Q: What do you ‘mean’ when you create your art?
A: I usually don’t really have any big meaning in my pieces, unless I am assigned to in class. I mostly like to do portraiture and landscapes which are more focused on aesthetics rather than meaning.

Q: How do you feel about interpretation in general?
A: I believe the viewer can interpret a piece however they want. Even if the artist meant something specific in the piece, only half of the viewers might see it that way. The rest would see something else. The artist shouldn’t expect the viewer to get the intended meaning since viewers tend to apply pieces to themselves to get something else out of it.

Q: How do you feel about interpretation of your work?
A: I don’t usually put meaning into my work but I think it is good if someone can apply a meaning for themselves to get something out of it. I don’t expect them to, though.

Q: You mention ‘getting something out of’ a piece of artwork. What do you mean by this?
A: It speaks to you in some way. This might be an emotion or a new idea. Or it might make you think of something you haven’t thought of before.

Q: How would you feel if someone interpreted your work ‘wrong’, i.e. applied an interpretation to your work that was not the intended one?
A: I wouldn’t want my piece to offend anyone if they took it the wrong way, but if they are just finding a new possible meaning then I wouldn’t care.

Q: Would you feel any different if it was another person’s piece that was being ‘wrongly’ interpreted?
A: I wouldn’t think that it was wrong to do so.

Q: How do you feel about abstract art and its interpretation?
A: I think abstract art is good if it is obvious that the artist put a lot of time, effort, and thought into a piece. But I don’t like abstract art that looks as if it took ten minutes to create and the artist inserted some deep meaning onto the piece after the fact. I don’t think this type of person should be recognized as a true artist. The point of abstract art is to be non-objective so the viewer needs to be told the meaning behind the work in order to understand the piece or get something out of it. Some abstract art is just pretty, or solely about aesthetics. In most, the meaning is more significant to the whole piece than the piece itself (its content and form).

Q: Do you feel there is a relationship between content and form?
A: Yes, because you would paint your home differently than you would paint a haunted house. You would use different brushstrokes, lighting, color, shading, etc. for each piece.

Q: How would you feel about being compared to another artist?
A: If I didn’t like their work I would find it interesting. If I thought their work was amazing then I would take it as a compliment. It is hard not to have your work remind the viewer of someone else’s, even though many artists try to be completely unique and so would find any comparison insulting.

Q: Why is it hard not to have your work remind the viewer of someone else’s?
A: Because art has been going on for quite a while. This might only be true for people who are familiar with a wide range of artists and their work. It is hard to come up with something completely new and different in terms of subject and style.

So, in summary, this interviewee did not see any wrong with interpretation. This could be due to the fact that it is extremely prevalent in the artistic world and therefore can easily be seen as commonplace or 'normal' in this setting. It must be taken into consideration, however, that this particular artist does not normally engage in creating artwork that is prone to interpretation. Instead, she tends to create true-to-life images in which it is obvious there is no hidden meaning. In other words, her works are concerned more with reality rather than creativity.

The following are a few examples of this artists recent work:



As can clearly be seen, these pieces are exactly what they appear to be at face value: people, objects, and scenery. There is no hidden meaning behind these, nor is the viewer expected to look for one.



These pieces could seem to some as if they have a possible meaning behind them, but the artist herself has acknowledged that each was drawn either completely or partially from reality, with minimal creative license.

This comparison is meant to show the drawbacks of interpreting a piece of artwork. If you want to see some other examples of local artists who are in opposition to Sontag's overall message that interpretation lessens a piece of artwork, see the posts concerning Gary Setzer and others.

A Plethora of Interpretations

The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock by T.S. Eliot has been deconstructed, analyzed, and interpreted several times over. There are whole articles dedicated to lines, words, or allusions in the poem and it appears that each has his own "meaning" to tack on to the poem.

Here is a page of a website dedicated solely to several different interpretations of the poem. J. Hillis Miller focuses on the contradicting cases of the verbs in the poem and interprets this as a way in which the poet has imprisoned Prufrock in "an opaque sphere." Furthermore, since tense is interchangeable this leads to the conclusion that time is frozen as Prufrock debates whether to speak or not and thus "Space must be exterior to the self if movement through it is to be more than the following of a tedious argument in the mind. In the same way only an objective time can be other than the self, so that the flow of time can mean change for that self." What does this mean to the reader? To you? If anything, Miller's convoluted way of speaking detracts from the poem and confuses the reader even more than before. 

Similarly focusing on the grammar of the poem, John Paul Riquelme focuses on the use of the words "I" and "you." He argues that the "I" alienates the reader because "In many dramatic monologues the listener is. . .not specified, and the reader is invited to take over the role of listener in a one-sided conversation." In this case, the reader is kept from doing this. In contrast, when "you" is used it addresses the reader directly and draws them into the poem while at the same time distancing them from personal connection with the main character of Prufrock. Why would a writer wish to distance the reader from his work? Mutlu Blasing speculates that Eliot's own physical and psychological identity were compacted into J. Alfred Prufrock. If this were the case and Prufrock were a representation of Eliot, does this not deter the reader from making any emotional connection with the piece? What Riquelme and Blasing fail to address is how the word "I" when used within poetry and fiction can actually draw the reader into the writing because it assigns the reader the role of being the one speaking. If "I" is not universal to the reader, but is instead T.S. Eliot himself, can the reader ever fully comprehend his state of mind, his emotions, and his thoughts that are expressed in the poem? Sure, we may get a glimpse into the mind of a famous writer, but the complete understanding of ones own mind is reserved for oneself. Thus, assigning the "meaning" of "I" to any one person, whether it be Eliot or Prufrock, denies us the pleasure of connecting to the poem on a deeper, emotional and personal level. Creations such as the following would not be possible if we limited ourselves.

Other essays focus solely on one word or concept within the poem. For example an article by Nathan Cervo analyzes the name "J. Alfred Prufrock" itself in order to conclude that the poem and the character's name allude to Shakespeare's character Touchstone, from As You Like It. He then continues on listing ways in which the words of Touchstone are alluded to in Eliot's poem. For example, he parallels the event of Touchstone rebuking the song of two pages to that of Prufrock ignoring the "mermaids singing each to each." There is no question that Eliot alludes to many different historical events, people and writings within the poem--he mentions Michelangelo, Prince Hamlet, and Lazarus as well as uses a quote from Dante to offset the poem. However, when critics delve into these different allusions, as in the above case, they detract from the magic of the poem itself. They choose to focus on one thing. Why? Maybe it is just too difficult to focus on the whole. If one were to ponder whether or not knowing these allusions existed made the poem more enjoyable to read most likely one would find that it does no such thing. I cannot say I am more able to enjoy this poem knowing the "meaning" behind Prufrock's name, but I can say that it does seem to shed some light on the writer's intentions. Maybe to those who need it, this kind of analysis makes the simple (or convoluted) beauty and genius of the poem more understandable, relatable, and operable. Personally, I find it can detract from the magic of the words. Allusions are just passing references to which one may nod in recognition if desired, but they are not the key to understanding the work and they certainly have no bearing on our initial reaction to the work. Art is meant to transmit ideas through our most basic instincts; to connect creator and viewer through a sensual and emotional experience. This experience is taken away when we focus too much on the semantics and the details rather than on the piece as a whole and our personal reaction to it. Similar to when we force a narrative on The Mona Lisa so that we may understand it, when we focus on these details in Eliot's poem we lose sight of the art because we wish to "understand the meaning behind it" and thus lose the pleasure of simply enjoying the art for itself. How one connects with the art and why is for the individual to understand.

I find that focusing on form rather than content in this case is more rewarding because it is easier to comprehend and to make a connection with. T.S. Eliot is a poet whose poetry I never quite understood. Regardless of this, he remains one of my favorite poets, and this my favorite of his poems. I connect with this poem solely on a sensual level. The flow of the piece and the imagery it awakens in my mind are so powerful that tears often well up in my eyes when reading it. Are these images the ones Eliot intended to invoke? I have no way of knowing. All I know is that they come alive because of the words he chooses and where he places them, where he breaks the line and where he breaks the stanza. Difficult to understand? Maybe. Standing alone, without analysis or interpretation, however, this poem is beautiful regardless of what it "means."

Sometimes creative genius cannot be understood or interpreted; it can only be enjoyed and appreciated and FELT.

Conclusion

To conclude we ask you, the reader, to think about what you have read. Consider Sontag's quote and our many examples as means for gaining a clearer understanding of interpretation and how it effects art. 

Also, consider this:

What are your initial reactions to this piece (emotionally, psychologically, etc)? What do you think is the content? Describe its form. What do you think was the artist's intentions? Are you tempted to place any meaning onto it? If so, what?

This piece was painted by us as a group. Each of us chose a color and went wild with it on a piece of paper. This is a culmination of our project together. No, it has no deeper meaning to it; other than to reiterate our point. The point of art is not interpretation; the point is expression, the point is feeling, the point is an understanding of what it is, not what it means. So leave art alone. Bask in its genius and let yourself feel overwhelmed by its purity, its emotion, its beauty. Allow the art to be wild and free without interpretation weighing it down.