![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lynati“Those who find ugly meanings in beautiful things are corrupt without being charming.”
-Oscar Wilde
When it comes to aesthetical theory, I always start with a division that seems obvious: whether or not the artist created the work to have a specific meaning. Work that is only meant to be aesthetically pleasing (or disturbing, or intriguing) without making a deeper statement about the world is neither worse nor better than that art which makes critiques on politics or emotions, but that there is a difference of intent must be acknowledged. If an artist did not create a work to mean anything specific, then the only meaning we will ever find in it is that which we create ourselves— and if the work inspires you to seek out a meaning for it, then who is to say it is not a success? It remains true that work with issues of content will remain more interesting than those of form alone, for the truth behind their creation gives us a common ground which to launch interpretations from; a truth that, unlike god, is verifiable with the creator.
The three main aesthetic theories of Humanism, Formalism, and Post-modernism all have a good point to make about the judging of a text; their fault lies in that tends to work in exclusion of the other two. You have to look to each aspect – the author’s intent, the work as a finished product, and the viewer’s own world view- in order to get a complete picture. When you look at a work to find it’s meaning, you accepting that it had meaning; that its creator deliberately imbued it with such. A text does not come to be- it is formed.
But you cannot look only at the work. If you do, you are deciphering meaning by your own default set of reasoning- you have been told that a certain symbol means “life”, so everywhere you see it, you automatically believe it was meant to be read that way. Looking at the world through the artists’ eyes you might find that in his culture or personal repertoire that what you assume means “life” instead reads “bathroom”; much like the old joke about the art critics discussing the all the meanings inherent in an abstract painting until the janitor comes long and mentions the work has been hung upside down.
If you ignore that intent, you are not reading what is there at all- you are raping the true essence of the artwork by only allowing it to have the meaning you think it aught to have; when you take a work out of context, you are robbing the viewer of the ability to understand the meaning the author intended for it. It is the very fact that the meaning of a text can change so easily by context that allows it to encompass all meanings; if the text can be everything, then there truly is nothing outside of it. You must place the text inside something, frame it in references, in order to allow it to have any specific meanings. If it is accurate to say that people cannot argue about god because there is no way to verify any truth about the concept, than it suggests that there are concepts that must have verifiable meanings.
However, formalism cannot be ignored. You cannot discuss a text if you do not look at it. You can know everything about the life and habits of the artist and still not be able to script a meaning for every work he or she creates by that alone- the persona in the text is not necessarily that of the artist. If a writer has created a work in all seriousness on a topic they hold in highest regard puts a whole different complexion on the piece than if we were to look at the artist’s true ideals and realize the work is a satire. Change the point at which you stand to view the work, and what you are looking at changes as well.
In a sideline on the importance of keeping the author’s intent valid while judging a work, let me speak for a moment on titles. Titles can change your whole perspective on a work- and very few people are possessed of enough hubris to change a title of a painting to something they feel is more fitting. If the text is to be judged on its content alone, then the titles would be irrelevant- and they rarely are. And if the title is considered part of the work, then the viewer must accept the artist’s intent is part of the piece.
If the meaning does not come from the artist, then it must come from the collective views of the public- and ceases to be “meaning” at all. If you deny the artist’s role in the work, then you deny the power behind the work itself. If you want to know the meaning behind the work, you must ask the artist what they intended, for if you ask the painting you will be a long time waiting for a response- or again only placing upon it your views. You must accept this as a necessity, unless you intend to ignore what was meant or how other people interpret the text all together and impose your own original meaning onto it as the only possibility.
However, if a text only inspires in you the desires of its creator, and none of your own, it has fallen several feet short of being a truly successful work of art. If it does not raise in the viewers opinions of their own, then it is not worth the time it would take to decipher it’s meaning. But when a work becomes more than what the artist attempted it to be, provoking in the viewer all manner of possibilities of interpretation, it has grown beyond the artist’s intent-- but what was intended is still the keystone. It is the starting point for the creation of the work, and it is difficult to fully understand a work without understanding what road was traveled for it to reach its finale. This is important to remember when we reach the third side of the overall view- that of the viewer.
We can find meaning in anything; and thus, meanings in a work that the author did not intend it to. This does not make them “wrong”; it merely makes them unique to our individual perspective. We can analyze the strokes of a brush by what representations psychologists claim they have, applying layers of meaning of our own. The viewer will always interpret the work somewhat differently than the artist meant it to be, for he or she will always look at it out of their own life experiences.
The work is a finely crafted mirror, and the more talented the author the more accurate the shadow of meaning they intended will be cast over what in reflects, but it will nonetheless always reflect the viewer. Our opinions and discourse over a text reveals to us not the text, but our own selves
-Oscar Wilde
When it comes to aesthetical theory, I always start with a division that seems obvious: whether or not the artist created the work to have a specific meaning. Work that is only meant to be aesthetically pleasing (or disturbing, or intriguing) without making a deeper statement about the world is neither worse nor better than that art which makes critiques on politics or emotions, but that there is a difference of intent must be acknowledged. If an artist did not create a work to mean anything specific, then the only meaning we will ever find in it is that which we create ourselves— and if the work inspires you to seek out a meaning for it, then who is to say it is not a success? It remains true that work with issues of content will remain more interesting than those of form alone, for the truth behind their creation gives us a common ground which to launch interpretations from; a truth that, unlike god, is verifiable with the creator.
The three main aesthetic theories of Humanism, Formalism, and Post-modernism all have a good point to make about the judging of a text; their fault lies in that tends to work in exclusion of the other two. You have to look to each aspect – the author’s intent, the work as a finished product, and the viewer’s own world view- in order to get a complete picture. When you look at a work to find it’s meaning, you accepting that it had meaning; that its creator deliberately imbued it with such. A text does not come to be- it is formed.
But you cannot look only at the work. If you do, you are deciphering meaning by your own default set of reasoning- you have been told that a certain symbol means “life”, so everywhere you see it, you automatically believe it was meant to be read that way. Looking at the world through the artists’ eyes you might find that in his culture or personal repertoire that what you assume means “life” instead reads “bathroom”; much like the old joke about the art critics discussing the all the meanings inherent in an abstract painting until the janitor comes long and mentions the work has been hung upside down.
If you ignore that intent, you are not reading what is there at all- you are raping the true essence of the artwork by only allowing it to have the meaning you think it aught to have; when you take a work out of context, you are robbing the viewer of the ability to understand the meaning the author intended for it. It is the very fact that the meaning of a text can change so easily by context that allows it to encompass all meanings; if the text can be everything, then there truly is nothing outside of it. You must place the text inside something, frame it in references, in order to allow it to have any specific meanings. If it is accurate to say that people cannot argue about god because there is no way to verify any truth about the concept, than it suggests that there are concepts that must have verifiable meanings.
However, formalism cannot be ignored. You cannot discuss a text if you do not look at it. You can know everything about the life and habits of the artist and still not be able to script a meaning for every work he or she creates by that alone- the persona in the text is not necessarily that of the artist. If a writer has created a work in all seriousness on a topic they hold in highest regard puts a whole different complexion on the piece than if we were to look at the artist’s true ideals and realize the work is a satire. Change the point at which you stand to view the work, and what you are looking at changes as well.
In a sideline on the importance of keeping the author’s intent valid while judging a work, let me speak for a moment on titles. Titles can change your whole perspective on a work- and very few people are possessed of enough hubris to change a title of a painting to something they feel is more fitting. If the text is to be judged on its content alone, then the titles would be irrelevant- and they rarely are. And if the title is considered part of the work, then the viewer must accept the artist’s intent is part of the piece.
If the meaning does not come from the artist, then it must come from the collective views of the public- and ceases to be “meaning” at all. If you deny the artist’s role in the work, then you deny the power behind the work itself. If you want to know the meaning behind the work, you must ask the artist what they intended, for if you ask the painting you will be a long time waiting for a response- or again only placing upon it your views. You must accept this as a necessity, unless you intend to ignore what was meant or how other people interpret the text all together and impose your own original meaning onto it as the only possibility.
However, if a text only inspires in you the desires of its creator, and none of your own, it has fallen several feet short of being a truly successful work of art. If it does not raise in the viewers opinions of their own, then it is not worth the time it would take to decipher it’s meaning. But when a work becomes more than what the artist attempted it to be, provoking in the viewer all manner of possibilities of interpretation, it has grown beyond the artist’s intent-- but what was intended is still the keystone. It is the starting point for the creation of the work, and it is difficult to fully understand a work without understanding what road was traveled for it to reach its finale. This is important to remember when we reach the third side of the overall view- that of the viewer.
We can find meaning in anything; and thus, meanings in a work that the author did not intend it to. This does not make them “wrong”; it merely makes them unique to our individual perspective. We can analyze the strokes of a brush by what representations psychologists claim they have, applying layers of meaning of our own. The viewer will always interpret the work somewhat differently than the artist meant it to be, for he or she will always look at it out of their own life experiences.
The work is a finely crafted mirror, and the more talented the author the more accurate the shadow of meaning they intended will be cast over what in reflects, but it will nonetheless always reflect the viewer. Our opinions and discourse over a text reveals to us not the text, but our own selves
