UHP399 Gardens & Machines

Chapter six deals with interpretation. As we all know a work can be interpreted in many ways, and Freeland covers two theories about how a work should be interpreted. Expression theory proposes that a work exists to express emotion. However, as Freeland demonstrates, there are many critiques of this theory. It seems too simplistic. Art can express ideas as well as emotion, and Suzanne Langer astutely points out that an idea and an emotion are not too dissimilar. A piece can often be the artist working through a emotion, attempting to understand it, not merely an artist having an emotion and subsequently laying it down. Cognitive theory, or pragmatism, states that art has a job to do. Art gives knowledge to help us understand and manipulate the world around us–it “enables people to….grapple with reality.” Freeland leans on the side of cognitive theory, but also hints that valuable interpretation cannot simply come from one school of though. Chapter seven looks to the new forms and mediums in which artwork and human connections are taking place in. It outline the predictions and reactions of three men Benjamin, McLuhan and Baudrillard. The ideas of these men have points on both the positive and negative sides of these new venues. Among the positive predictions are the democratisation of art and the loss of the “aura,” the expansion into a “global village,” and the amount of control that new users have over the Internet. Baudrillard has a predominantly negative view of the new media, suggesting that we could all loose ourselves in the quagmire of it all.

I enjoyed this reading more than I thought I would, and even more so after the second reading. Langers idea that emotions or feelings and ideas can be nearly one and the same–along with the quote that was read in class–really did lead me to new trains of thought. The idea of pragmatism was especially interesting for me. The picture I brought in for my “dislike” was what could be considered “Modern Art”–very abstract and odd–but looking at it from a pragmatic point of view did slightly change my perspective. I still dislike it aesthetically, but asking why someone made it, and why others think it is deserving of a place in a museum, did help me “grapple with my reality.” This alone proves that it has some worth.

Three Questions. Okay.

1. Could being exposed to greater amounts of artwork that you don’t like make you grow as a person more than surrounding yourself with pieces you do like?

2. Does the meaning that is grounded in zeitgeist (as suggested by Foucault) stop us from ever being able to truly comprehend a piece from a time period different than our own?

3. Has the “transparency of evil” that Baudrillard speaks of already run its course?

P.S. I am still interested in the Sept 12 trip, my Email is just being a bit odd at the moment.