Freeland response: “But is it Art?”
In Chapter six, Freeland leads us to consider forms of art interpretation, and begins to answer some of the questions that our class was perplexed by last week in regards to “liking” or “disliking” a particular piece of work. She mentions that critics approach art through several different perspectives and in turn, different pieces of the work’s effect speak to each individual who views it. As humans, we seem to be more satisfied by a work of art when we can explain why it speaks to us, or when we can explain the meaning behind the creation of the piece. The first type of interpretation Freeland develops is Expression theory, focusing on Tolstoy’s theory that the artist needs to pass on a particular emotion that she might be feeling. At the same time, I agree with Tolstoy’s critics who say that an artist most likely does not feel the same emotion for the weeks or months on end while he is working on his artwork, so the “expressiveness,” Freeland writes, “is in the work, not the artist.“ The emotional interpretation of art allows us to recognize, according to Suzanne Langer, that much of our sentiment about it cannot be described by familiar notions or phrases. There is something that speaks to us – this aura, maybe, that we have discussed in class. I like the line at the bottom of page 161, were Freeland draws upon a quote from the poet Coleridge to demonstrate how when we “follow the artist’s efforts, we recreate the process of self-discovery, so we too become artists…” The notion of self-discovery ties into the delineation of Foucault’s theory as well. At the end of the day, it may be best to not get stuck on what the artist wants or intends to be viewed in her work. Foucault mentions that viewers can get “locked” into trying to interpret an artwork in the “correct” way, as opposed to allowing their own interpretations to make the piece of work meaningful to them. Yes, it is important to consider the artist’s intent, but it is ultimately all the pieces, histories, emotions of the work that should formulate an interpretive response by the viewer.
The example of cognitive interpretation that Freeland gives with Dewey parallels to the sentiment we get from the expression theory she mentioned earlier. We discussed this quote in class, but I really relate to Dewey’s quote about how to “know” art: “The medium of expression in art is neither objective nor subjective. It is the matter of a new experience in which subjective and objective have so cooperated that neither has any longer an existence by itself.” We come to “know” art through the way we are involved in the work. In a way, art becomes a language through which we converse with ourselves, allowing the pieces of an artwork to assemble in our minds in order to allow a dialogue of consideration about it. Freeland does not believe that there can be a “true” account of cognitive interpretation, but she does agree that art is a cognitive process from both sides. It allows us to think for ourselves and consider the thoughts of others in the “open” environment of our minds.
Chapter seven begins with the discussion of more modern forms of art, primary those that have been circulated to the “masses.” We spoke about Walter Benjamin’s idea that the “loss of aura was not a bad thing” because the “aura” in a particular piece of work separates it from the viewer, makes it – in a way – inaccessible and inhuman. Photography, according to Benjamin is much more democratic. More people can access the stages of its production; more people can own a copy of a photograph in their home. He mentions that the more modern works encourage the viewer to look at them critically, as opposed to the Picasso that may discourage the viewer from analyzing any interpretation of it because the artwork is “above” the viewer and the viewer is not sophisticated enough to understand it. However, there is now a different relationship between society and the notion of “cultural capital.” If works of art are accessible for viewership on the world-wide-web, why do so many people still travel the world to merely catch a glimpse of an original Monet or the Mona Lisa? Yes, the pilgrimage is made, but we spoke in class about how our expectations can be disappointed depending on what images of the sought-out artwork had been spewed at us before our viewing. McLuhan’s new theory that the content does not matter as much as the type of media that is used definitely speaks to the culture of the 21st century. I would argue that the general society has become impatient toward some forms of art because they are not displayed in the highly technological media that we are used to. We may not be able to figure out what that classical piece of artwork is saying to us, but Disneyland and MTV allow us to view images all the time without ever really having to think about them. In trying to be democratic, we may be running ourselves into a dangerously homogenized world of “accepted” artwork. Perhaps it is the “hyperreal, from Baudrillard’s postmodern ideas, that disassociates individuals from the critical analysis of art, the dialogue of interpretation with artwork. Baudrillard mentions that “the simulation of live TV…is too intimate.” He believes that we have come to think we “know” [art] – representations of our world – and don’t bother to really consider them much. anymore. Although the new media of Internet and television montage disconnects us as a world society from both “reality” and the desire to speak with a piece of art, I believe that there is room for improvement; there are many ways in which we can tweak the presentation of web-based, quick-media art that can utilize the advantages of democratic art.
Questions for discussion:
1. In respect to Foucault’s concern that we, as viewers, can be distracted with what the artist intends us to see (the author function), what do you do to allow an artwork speak to you in your interpretation of it? In other words, what approach of interpretation do you take when looking at an artwork?
2. In what ways do you think the loss of “aura” can be damaging to society’s consideration of art?
3. McLuhan and Freeland’s thought that new media “promote[s] connectedness and new international community” speaks to some of the examples of art we see on television and in society today. In what specific ways have you noticed the advantages of working with new media, compared to “classical” artwork?