Artistic Interpretation - Part I

Coffee? Art? Both? Neither? Demon Eyes? Face Mask? Flower? Random lines of foam in coffee?

The recent claims regarding hidden anatomical meaning in Michangelo’s work on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel lead to questions regarding the interpretation of artistic creations.

Is it possible to interpret a work of art in a fashion identical to its intended meaning?

Do we over-analyse art and extrapolate meanings unintended by its creator?

Is there even a “correct” interpretation for artistic creations, a “Truth” of sorts?

This two-part written creation explores all of these issues. The argument put forth here is that artistic creations have two primary types of truths – the truth of the creator and the truths of the interpreters. It is further suggested that these truths are non-identical and “the interpretation” of artistic creations propounded in society is actually a consensus knowledge approach imbibing elements of both types of truths. A comparison of the two categories of truth is also incorporated.

---------

Scientific theories claiming that the human mind searches for patterns in everything it perceives have been on the table for decades. Daily experience provides compelling evidence for their veracity; every fifth person walking down the street looks like someone familiar; science itself is based on the premise that the workings of the world follow certain basic laws – a premise that often leads to theories with more exceptions that followers, as those who have studied science in depth will have experienced. If one is to accept the theory that human beings are inclined to see continuity and familiarity in perceived data, then it can be extrapolated to the perception and interpretation of artistic creations. If this line of thought is accepted, then this would certainly predispose us to see patterns that are non-existent or unintended in works of art. The question it raises is whether such artistic interpretation detracts from “the truth” or adds more dimensions to it.

The key difference between generic epistemological explorations and artistic interpretations is that art is a human creation while most epistemological endeavours focus on objects not created by humans, such as the universe (if indeed they have a creator at all). Given this crucial difference, the argument put forth here would be that there is categorically no absolute truth with regards to these creations – there is the truth of the creator and the truths of interpreters. This argument in no way alludes to the existence of an overarching absolute truth for non-human creations; it merely says that there is no such truth for artistic creations.

The Truth of the Creator. Every work of art means something specific to its creator – it is an expression of his thoughts, emotions, opinions and/or perspective. When we interpret (the truths of the interpreters) Shakespeare’s “Hamlet” or Leonardo da Vinci’s “Vitruvian Man” we seem to assume that we are trying to reach the meaning intended by the artist. I would, however, argue that it is not possible to see anything in the same light as another person – and the same logic applies for uncovering intended meaning in works of art.

So why is it not possible to see something in exactly the same light as another person? Firstly, we all base our knowledge on belief systems comprised not only of assumptions but also of experiences. Evoking Kuhnian paradigms would suggest that every person has a different set of assumptions and therefore looks at things in a unique light. That doesn’t seem like the most convincing argument, however. So consider that belief systems and paradigms evolve with experience. Not many would dispute that no two people have exactly identical experiences. Therefore, even if you start with the same set of assumptions, the eventual paradigm can differ. As Bertrand Russell expressed in his “The Problems of Philosophy”, the table kept in the centre of a room will appear slightly different to each observer, depending upon the position of the observer and the angle of light reflecting off the table. It is the same object being observed, but the process of observation results in an image unique to each observer. In the same manner, the object here is the work of art and the image is the interpretation formulated by the observer. The question is whether the object is superior to the image – or is the image equally “true”?

In the Bertrand Russell example the distinction between object and image is not all that obscure, making argumentation for or against superiority of the object far more substantive. When it comes to artistic interpretation, however, the question has a lot of subtle layers, not necessarily visible at first glance. The table in this case would be the work of art or the creation itself. The problem arises because while we all know what a table is and ought to be, we cannot really claim the same certitude for an artistic creation. Does the essence of the existence of the piece contain the “truth of the creator”? Or is the work simply a vehicle, much like words are in the process of communication – they mean whatever we want them to mean? The answer to this issue weighs heavily in the comparison of the truth of the creator and the truths of the interpreters.