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.

[Vocabulary] Thomas Kuhn, Paradigms and the Notion of Epistemological Progress

A Collective Paradigm

[Allegations of philosophyxiation being intellectually elitist have prompted this series which is intended to explain the vocabulary used here – a dictionary for the language of philosophyxiation.]

---

As all students of philosophy will tell you, an oft recited story is that of the epistemological underpinnings of the philosophy of the renowned French mathematician and philosopher Rene Descartes. Descartes came to the conclusion that all the things he thought he knew were in reality epistemologically suspect. Therefore, the only way to get to true knowledge was to throw everything he thought he knew out the window and start afresh. This is the story that leads to the famous “cogito ergo sum” (I think, therefore I am), but that is irrelevant in this context. The reason for recounting this story is the implicit recognition of the fact that we do not construct knowledge within a vacuum. As Descartes realised, it is simply not possible to formulate anything epistemologically significant without making a few assumptions. This realisation is the basis of Thomas Kuhn’s idea of paradigms.

Paradigm Shifts

A paradigm is essentially the set of assumptions within which we construct knowledge. It is the “box” within which we live. That is not to say that it is static or singular. Every piece of knowledge we construct within our individual paradigm is based on some of the assumptions of the paradigm – like many small boxes within the larger box. In his “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”, Kuhn argues that revolutions in Science occur when one or more of the assumptions constituting the paradigm are falsified, instigating the adoption of a new paradigm in lieu of the falsified paradigm. These paradigm shifts seem to be indicative of epistemological progress from Kuhn’s point of view. An example of such a paradigm shift would be the validation of the Copernican model which falsified the assumption that the Earth was the centre of the Solar System.

The above is a simplified and brief interpretation of Thomas Kuhn’s view of progress in epistemology. While his ideas of paradigms and paradigm shifts appear to be insightful and applicable, his claim of paradigm shifts as progress is problematic. This is because the comparison of paradigms with regards to accuracy is only possible if that comparison is carried out in a vacuum. Since we cannot, by Kuhn’s own admission, reach that intellectual vacuum, we cannot “know” whether the new paradigm brings us any closer to “the truth” than the one it replaced. And that is already assuming paradigms have a hierarchy and that correspondent Knowledge exists. So paradigm shifts and revolutions in thought can at best be regarded as change; claiming that they represent progress involves a number of assumptions that do not hold up very well under close scrutiny.

---

Disclaimer – All the ideas presented here are personal interpretations of the ideas of certain philosophers, as opposed to THE ideas of said philosophers.

Who Am I. Really.

Identity.

Who you are.

What defines you.

A quest for some. A stupid question for others. And always a tool for those who are aware of its power. Identity takes many forms – pride, honour, patriotism – and in every form it has brought people together and pushed them apart since time immemorial. I would argue that it is really identity and the feeling of inclusion and exclusion that it creates that gives strongholds like religion their power. If this argument were to hold water, this one word would probably be responsible for the largest share of bloodshed caused by a single motivating factor. Quite a thought.

The German philosopher Immanuel Kant divided qualities into two primary classes – qualities things inherently possess and qualities we ascribe to things. The inherent qualities comprise the things in themselves, or “das ding an sich”. We then superpose certain qualities on objects (and people by extension); these superposed qualities are subjective in nature according to Kant. It can then be postulated that the perceived differences in the identity of things are due to this second layer of subjective ascriptions.

According to Kantian theories, there is this fundamental identity things possess. Of course the question of how we can distinguish these traits from any subjective additions, if at all, still remains.

Thomas Kuhn’s philosophy is characterized by his idea of a paradigm. A paradigm is a set of assumptions within which we view the world and construct all of our knowledge (knowledge as opposed to Knowledge). Revolutions in epistemology (in any field essentially) occur due to a changing of paradigms. Therefore paradigms aren’t fixed. However, they are not easily modified either. A paradigmatic upheaval has serious implications as all knowledge constructed within the previous paradigm has to be re-assessed, and discarded if it does not comply with the new set of assumptions. It is an idea that applies well when applied to figures like Albert Einstein who could not accept the quantum revolution despite having instigated new paradigmatic eras themselves.

So Kuhn’s paradigms make it impossible for there to be an unbiased anything. Assumptions are bias. The absence of assumptions is also the absence of any kind of knowledge. For even the simplest forms of deductive knowledge, assumptions are necessary. If this is now superposed with the two-layer Kantian identity idea, the first layer is something we can never get to. It would require an unbiased view, which Kuhn says we cannot have.

The wider implication of this is that while there is a dichotomy between ‘actual’ and perceived as regards identity, actual has no real practical meaning. Who you are or a thing is actually is a pointless question because you cannot know. It’s like asking what a quantum object is like in the absence of the observer- it could be nothing, everything, something entirely different – you just will never know. Practically all identity there is, is perceived.

It might seem logically consistent to conclude that you are what you think you are. However, it isn’t entirely accurate the way I see it. That conclusion would presuppose a certain freedom to formulate an independent opinion of anything. Shakespeare pointed out centuries ago (via Julius Caesar) that we see ourselves through other people’s eyes. Our perceptions are a product of society and by extension so are we, to a very large extent. If Robinson Crusoe claimed after years of solitary living that he was who he thought he was, it wouldn’t still be believable because again the freedom to form an independent perception was absent. Survival was his motivation as well as his compulsion.

There is an apparent pointlessness in trying to see things in black and white when wearing rose coloured glasses. And there is that same pointlessness in trying to search for what something really is or who you really are. The way I see it, while you don’t have the freedom to define yourself in any which way you desire, you still have a very large say. The challenge is to not choose to do or not do things because of something or someone, but to do them regardless of what something or someone wants you to do. Because it is really in the absence of external influences that you can find/define your identity.