For interpretation

Daniel Siedell has recently posted on Susan Sontag’s essay, "Against Interpretation" (1966), in which:

"Sontag argues that the classical mimetic theory of art has created an unnecessary distinction between form and content, which modern (and now postmodern) theories have merely intensified. Interpretation presumes that a work of art must justify itself through content. Sontag writes, "Directed to art, interpretation means plucking a set of elements (the X, the Y, the Z, and so forth) from the whole work. The task of interpretation is virtually one of translation." In the hands of interpretation, art becomes merely the visual illustration of an idea."

Arguing against interpretation seems problematic to me because as soon as one moves beyond factual reportage of form, one is instantly in the realm of interpretation where one’s worldview (whether consciously or unconsciously) frames all one’s responses to the artwork, however deep one’s engagement with the work of art may be. Each of us inevitably view all that we encounter through the lens of our particular perspective. That doesn’t prevent us from engaging with anything new but does mean that we cannot have an entirely objective (‘God’s eye’ perspective?) perspective on anything with which we engage. It seems to me that Sontag presupposes the possibility of an engagement with the artwork by the viewer which is entirely free of any internal influence and where engagement is only in relation to the work itself. I don’t think that is possible because we are always context bound and therefore are always interpreting.

If interpretation is inevitable, the question then becomes how to do it well. There seem to me to be at least five elements, which vary considerably in importance.

The first and most important is an engagement with the work itself. Like Sontag and Siedell I would also want to emphasise the importance of a deep engagement with the work of art itself as a unified whole combining form and content. Form and content cannot be separated in viewing, engaging with and responding to the work as an integrated entity. Form and content inter-relate and their inter-relation must be perceived and appreciated if there is to be real engagement with the integrity of the work. All interpretation must therefore begin with and constantly relate back to the unique combination of form and content which is the artwork itself.

The unified whole that is the artwork exists in relation to the artist who created it as a child exists in relation to her/his parents. The child is always a person in his/her own right who can be known and encountered entirely independently of the parents yet who has been formed by both the genes and upbringing of the parents and continues to be, whether in revolt against or in harmony with, in relationship with her/his parents. Similarly, an artwork can never be defined by the intent or history of the artist that created it but both the artist’s intent and history can shed valid and valuable light on the work.

Each artwork also exists within a range of different contexts. The most obvious is the physical context of the space in which it is encountered; most commonly, but by no means exclusively, gallery space. The inter-relation between the space and the work is most explicit in site-specific works but is a factor in response to all works. Other contexts include the social and cultural time in which it has been created, whether or not the work specifically refers to aspects of these or not (just as a child can be in revolt against or in harmony with his/her parents, so an artwork may respond to or react against its social and cultural context), and its place within art history and art movements (again, rejection or assimilation may be involved) including the influence of other art upon its creation and the effect that its creation has on art history and art movements.

Each artwork also generates its own critical trail as it is reviewed, analysed, interpreted and categorised by critics, curators, historians and other artists.

Finally, each viewer makes their own personal response to the work. One that is inevitably influenced by the factors already listed but which always holds the potential, because of the unique combination of influences and perspectives that each viewer brings, to perceptions which may differ markedly from those generated by these same factors.

Contemplation and reflection are key if the varied nuances of each work are to be perceived and integrated. Often the time required is not given affecting the quality and integrity, my own very much included, of the interpretation.

Observation and research into the practice of visitors to galleries suggests that the amount of time spent engaging with the work itself is often minimal (the crowds founded at blockbuster exhibition exacerbate this tendency) and that priority is often given to critical comment on the work, whether in the form of curatorial explanatory labels, catalogue entries or audio guides. Whether through lack of time or confidence, these practices seem to emphasise the least helpful factors in interpretation.

A sustained, deep engagement with the work seems the necessary beginning for interpretation, and the central reference to which interpretation should constantly return. In my view this would then lead to personal response which can be developed and challenged by consideration of the artist’s intent and history, the work’s several contexts, and the critical trail the work has generated to date. None are ultimately definitive, although the form and content of the work itself provide the parameters within which all interpretation takes place.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
The Low Anthem - Golden Cattle.