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.