The power INTERPRETATION

by Terry 11 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  John Doe

  There is no way to penetrate the mind of an artist and divine the "meaning" of their art. They themselves might not be conscious of "meaning".

  That's highly debatable.
• 

  Terry

  There is no way to penetrate the mind of an artist and divine the "meaning" of their art. They themselves might not be conscious of "meaning".

  That's highly debatable.

  Let's compare and contrast.

  We are all pretty much familiar with Van Gogh and his difficulties getting anybody (but Theo) to see something of value in his art.

  He produced more than 2,000 works, including around 900 paintings and 1,100 drawings and sketches, during the last ten years of his life

  The art did not change at all over the years, but, the opinion of the critics and the public at large underwent a dramatic turnabout.

  The interpretation of the paintings is what changed and not the art.

  Van Gogh had worked for a high-profile art dealer when he was younger and became vocal (he spoke out to clients) about making art a commodity. He deplored the practice. Consequently, he was fired.

  No doubt his reputation in the public's view (the art public) was that of a holier-than-thou prig who was too high-minded to view the buying and selling of art as a reputable enterprise.

  This interpretation of the man seems to have infused the art itself he produced. An unspoken revenge, perhaps, on the part of the art buyers, collectors and such?

  The fact that he left the artworld and became a zealous christian missionary no doubt convinced many he was unhinged.

  He preached to and lived among the very poor. Van Gogh thought it would be hypocritical not to live as the poor did to whom he preached and he lived among them sleeping on straw and undergoing the same rigors of poor diet, cold and discomfort as the villagers. He sobbed himself to sleep at night so grave was his misery.

  Word got out, as gossip is wont to do, the general art public caught wind of the fact Vincent Van Gogh was eccentric and extreme and doubtless a lunatic.

  Could this have prepared their state of mind to view his subsequent art as merely the product of an insane person rather than interpreting it for what it was in and of itself qua art?

  It could not have helped matter when Vincent's father had him placed in a mental asylum!

  Vincent wished to become an artist while in God's service as he stated, "to try to understand the real significance of what the great artists, the serious masters, tell us in their masterpieces, that leads to God; one man wrote or told it in a book; another in a picture."

  That was his interpretation of the enterprise itself.

  My point?

  There are inextricable connections between perceptions, expectations, personalities and such and the product of those confluences: the art.

  A change in perspective (over time) leads to the exact same product (art) being beheld in so many varying shades of gray (evaluations) that there cannot be said there is an objective interpretation even possible.

  See what I mean?

  Today it is a "given" in our society that Van Gogh is a tragic figure of great unappreciated genius. Our collective heart goes out to him and is prepared to value his work as a legacy of monumental transcendance.

  But, heck--it is still the same art rejected by sane, intelligent, savvy people in Vincent's era.

  Amazing.