I apologize if the title caught you off guard. I, through this piece, will attempt to examine whether art is meaningless because two red dots on a stark white wall do not tell me the political scenario in any country but then again what if the liberals are indeed taking over and the water is turning the frogs ga- what?
After all, they say “art” is open to interpretation, right?
What does the artwork mean? (and no it is not “subjective” even if you claim it is. I know you do not believe that, look at two red dots on a green background and tell me if you think it is art)
It is fair to say you do not like “X” but then can “X” be about anything? If you were to, let’s say, tell me that you just watched “Avatar 2- The way of Water”(unnecessarily stretched btw) and I was to ask “OoOOoH what is it about?” and you go, “It is about two parents who have kids who then in turn leave the couple to rot when they’re old and retired and then the father writes a book and becomes famous” and I’ll say “No, that’s Baghban”. (I know you’ve watched it, don’t lie)
You can look at a work of art, think you know what it is about and be wrong, which means the meaning at least is NOT subjective. So, assuming artworks do have objective meaning, how do we find out what the meaning is? If I do not get it, how exactly do I do what I need to do in order to get it?
Take “Pale Fire” for example, one of the most famous novels of the 20th century written by Vladimir Nabokov. The story is that the poet John Shade has been murdered on the night he finished his greatest work- the poem is then published posthumously by his friend, Charles with notes explaining his meaning. However, as we read on the notes get weirder and weirder. He starts claiming that certain words in the poem are a part of a coded message on how John was in love with him but his wife wouldn’t let him confess (I mean, makes sense) and that the poem is all about Charles and he starts droning on until the reader starts thinking, “DID GAY CHARLES MURDER STRAIGHT JOHN?!??!” Part of the humor lies in the fact that Charles’ interpretation of the poem is wrong- he claims it is about a certain thing and it clearly is not. That begs the question- how do we know he is wrong?
Some philosophers have said that in order to find out a particular artwork’s meaning, one has to look at the artist’s intention. That does not do us any good in the case of “Pale Fire”- the artist is dead.
This is a very common problem with art history, specifically old pieces.
Michel Foucault (French Philospher) pointed out the fact that the author of a text is at times, a vague construct- a brand.
Roland Barthes, in his famous essay, “Death of the Author” states that one should forget about the author and just focus on the actual text.
Susan Sotang (American Writer) had this to say about interpretation, “It is the revenge of the intellect upon the world. To interpret is to impoverish, to deplete the world – in order to set up a shadow world of ‘meanings…… Real art has the capacity to make us nervous.. Interpretation makes art manageable, conformable”
David Mamet who is known for his problematic plays, wrote a play called “Race” in 2009- the story revolves around a wealthy white man who has been accused of raping a young black woman. The whole story is set in the offices of his defence lawyers as they are desperately trying to concoct a story that will make him look innocent. The witnesses state that they heard sex noises and slurs being shouted- the defence they come up with then is that the woman was into it and it was all consensual and now she just wants money. As the play goes on, it starts to emerge that maybe this is what actually happened and the wealthy white man is indeed innocent.
Mamet says that if one is writing a play- they should forget about the politics of it, the meaning, the interpretation of it all. What matters is- is it entertaining? Does the audience want to know what is going to happen next? Are they waiting with bated breaths? If someone is still trying to “get it”- they are mere fools.
However, there seems to be this almost crushing cultural pressure to get art, especially Modern Art. Walk through any modern art gallery and you’ll feel like actual trash when you gawk at people staring and making little insightful comments about a painting which looks to you as if a baby threw up after having cerelac.
Then again, what is the point of trying to get art?
In “Macbeth” (A guy murders the King and steals the throne) there is a running theme in the play about wearing somebody else’s clothing. People say it is a metaphor about wearing somebody else’s throne. The throne is loose and does not fit just like clothes that belonged to another people do not fit the borrower. They say his new title as “The King” does not fit him.
Now did William Shakespeare really intend for the theme to come across like that?
Alas, without a time machine and a mind reading machine- nothing can be confirmed.
Another way of asking the same question is- do we get more out of the play if we assume the metaphor is intended? Do we somehow enjoy it more? Does it point us further in the road to getting Art? If we dismiss it, are we missing out?
Alan Goldman says that the point of “getting art” is to maximize artistic value.
Essentially, getting it is not a competition. (Pun intended)
Back to “Pale Fire”, how do we know Charles is wrong?
If he is right, the poem is not impressive and certainly not John’s greatest work. John Shade leaves behind this amazing work- writes about being an old man and how he loves his daughter. Touching, really. If we assume as Charles does- it is kind of a waste. That is precisely what makes Charles a tragic character- so lost in his own mess that he cannot see the true value of what John has made and instead insists on the poem being about John’s love for him.
What seems to be more important is- to take a piece of art as it is and immerse yourself in it.
Rather than trying to get the meaning of an art piece, take it for what it is. Keep in mind it is not a competition, enjoy instead of analyzing the author’s intention. (Especially if they have passed away) Pablo Piccasso did not cut part of his own ear for you to determine what he was thinking about while painting. There is no right or wrong- just art.
This article has been written by Dhruv Khanduri (3rd Year).
