Does a work of art speak for itself or must one’s esthetic evaluation of it take into consideration the artist’s intended “message”?
I would say that once a work of art is created, whether it be architecture, a painting or a symphony, etc., it exists and has the nature that is has and should be evaluated on that nature alone. Its history is irrelevent.
I would say that once a work of art is created, whether it be architecture, a painting or a symphony, etc., it exists and has the nature that is has and should be evaluated on that nature alone. Its history is irrelevant.
It depends on the nature of the work of art. Some artists like to use symbolism, which might be historically significant at a certain time period and may not be understood at some other time. As an example, Thomas Kinkade uses a lot of so called Christian symbolism in his art – such as flying birds is supposed to represent freedom. However, one can enjoy the work of art without knowing the symbolism. Artist who use symbolism instead of a concretized abstraction run the risk that their message will not be understood, but the message is not the primary reason for either doing a work of art or of enjoying it. Supposedly, for example, The Twelve Days of Christmas carol is representative of Christ and his followers, The Twelve Apostles, but certainly one can enjoy the gaiety of the song without knowing anything about that. During certain time periods when there were prosecuted minorities, they reverted to symbolism out of fear of being politically prosecuted. Later, the symbolism was lost to history or was no longer relevant and the work can be enjoyed for the explicit concretization of abstractions.
The greater the artist, the better the concretizations, and the more the work of art can be view, enjoyed, or understood for its own sake versus for the sake of the supposed message (which may not be clear anyhow). So, at least in a free society, an artist ought to strive to have his message – if there is one – very explicit in the concretized abstractions, so that all one has to do is to experience the art to be able to “get it” without extensive analysis.
Does a work of art speak for itself or must one’s esthetic evaluation of it take into consideration the artist’s intended “message”?
That’s an interesting question, and one with which I have struggled with recently. My thoughts are not totally sorted out on it, but I can hopefully offer a rough outline of what I have been thinking.
Firstly, I think that when evaluating art it is important to throw out most of the 20th century criticism movements that attempt to judge art from some particular perspective (usually politicized), i.e. New Historicism, Structuralism, Post-Structuralism, Multiculturalism, Marxism, Feminism, etc. As Harold Bloom modifies a famous quote by Dr. Samuel Johnson in How to Read and Why: “clear your mind of academic cant. A university culture where the appreciation of Victorian women’s underwear replaces the appreciation of Charles Dickens and Robert Browning sounds like the outrageousness of a new Nathanael West…”
That said, the etymology of the word aesthetic is Greek and relates to perception, or things perceptible through the senses. I tend to believe that a work of art can be judged on a purely aesthetic merit in addition to its message. That is to say, one can disagree with an artwork’s message yet still find value in its more sensual elements. For instance, there are many writers that disgust me philosophically yet write astounding prose or poetry. The metaphorical skill of Proust deserves some credit, whatever Proust’s philosophical shortcomings were. George Crumb’s composition “A Haunted Landscape” amounts to a near total rejection of the more harmonic and melodic elements of Baroque and Romantic era music, yet it has some artistic merit in its ability to recreate the eerie feeling of a haunted landscape through a pointed stimulation of the senses.
As for the history question, I also disagree with the various and sundry movements that attempt to evaluate art through the lens of history. A critic from such a point of view may say, for example, that Rand was a reaction to 20th century collectivism and communism and Voltaire was a reaction to the injustices of France in the 18th century. I wouldn’t say that an investigation of an artist’s contemporary period is unimportant, but I would say that there is more to understanding or judging a work of art than contextualizing it within its historic period. Such a view makes little sense anyhow, since great art tends to be perpetually relevant to man’s condition on earth.
Bloom also writes in How to Read and Why that “you are more than an ideology, whatever your convictions”, which seems to echo Shakespeare’s Hamlet: “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” These may or may not be disagreeable quotes within the Objectivist community, but there is a point to be made: philosophy is abstract, and humans must act in the world according to their philosophical abstractions, whatever they may be. Rand writes in The Fountainhead that “we live in our minds, and existence is the attempt to bring that life into physical reality, to state it in gesture and form.” Perhaps she was talking about her own book, since the quote seems to be a pertinent description of art. Regardless, there is a certain pleasure to be found in the discovery of how an artist translates his abstractions into existence, irrespective of philosophical content. I have found through experience that approaching an artwork from a particular formulaic mindset will prevent one from enjoying it on an aesthetic basis, assuming its message is disagreeable.
I would say the ‘message’ is about as irrelevant as the student who submits a poorly written essay and claims he should have a higher grade, because he ‘intended’ to say “this” or “that”. The failure of his ability to communicate that is evidenced by the fact that he did not write that, or did not write it in a way that could be reasonably inferred or understood by another reader.
I agree with you that we should treat works of Art as works in themselves. There they are, for us to look at. We might not appreciate it fully, and it might take an Art historian, for example, to point out who these people depicted are (for example, in the murder of Caeser) and what all the elements are, but once we understand what the elements are, we can then make a fair evaluation.
This is distinctly different from the man who spews paint onto a canvas and wants us to see the ‘vociferous rage’ he was trying to express in his exhibition. In that case, he is asking us to attune our minds to his emotive state of being, not to focus our eyes (and our minds) on what is evident to us.
Does a work of art speak for itself or must one’s aesthetic evaluation of it take into consideration the artist’s intended “message”?
It speaks for itself. There maybe a discrepancy between an intended message and what has been executed.
One’s judgment about the work of art should be based on what a piece of art actually expresses and not artist’s intention (or what he was inspired by).
Does a work of art speak for itself or must one’s esthetic evaluation of it take into consideration the artist’s intended “message”?
What is your purpose of judging a work of art?
I ask this because I think the answer to this question lays at the base of what you “must” or “must not” do in regard to esthetic evaluation.
One can do either.
The final movement (unfinished) of Mahler’s 10th symphony has a passage in it which moves me in ways I cannot experess in words. The composer’s impending death adds meaning and, for me, beauty to the piece. So in this case I evaluate it taking into account this added dimension of context (because it adds to the pleasure).
Richard Wagner’s strong support for the Nazis does not enter into my evaluation of his works because I choose to separate his political/philosophical opinions from his works of creativity (because it would detract from the pleasure).
Does the fact that I can do this mean I should… that I cannot answer.
QUOTE (AndrewSternberg @ Jan 23 2009, 03:08 PM) *
Does a work of art speak for itself or must one’s esthetic evaluation of it take into consideration the artist’s intended “message”?
remember, every work of art is itself a universe, self contained and created by the artist… so anything of ‘message’ must be seen therein, else is just garbled or garbage… the purpose of art is ‘to show’ what is to the artist important, omitting the non, thus showing the essence… that is what is meant by 'selective representation ’ of the artist’s metaphysical value-judgments…
remember, every work of art is itself a universe, self contained and created by the artist… so anything of ‘message’ must be seen therein, else is just garbled or garbage… the purpose of art is ‘to show’ what is to the artist important, omitting the non, thus showing the essence… that is what is meant by 'selective representation ’ of the artist’s metaphysical value-judgments…
Replying further here - from my blog of a few years ago, under The Nature of a Rendering -
One of the things which needs correcting on is a misconception that titles are extraneous fixture to all but literature… wrong… titles[or theme/titles, as I prefer to consider them] are, properly, as much an integral part of the rendering as is the case with writing… perhaps it is more so, since it is the key to elevating the rendering from just a ‘sense of life’ to something more… initially, of course, the viewer is drawn to the visual work sans anything else about it… without knowing ANYTHING else - artist, title, era in which done - the work is first viewed as a glimpse into a self-contained world… it is seen as a universe on its own… within that framework, tho, there is much which can be gleamed… the metaphysical view, for instance, is instantly discernible - there is a vast difference in how a benevolent universe view contrasts with a malevolent one… is it a world of flux, or is it one of identity? if a landscape, are there vegetation, or is it barren? if vegetation, are they blooming, dying, or dead? are animals in health, or malformed? the humans - happy, serious, fearful? are the colors bright or murky? is it viewed with clarity, or is it as if from a nearsighted without glasses? what is the most prominent feature - the main focus? how is humanity placed within this universe? what size - larger than life, or tiny and insignificant? if no figures, what are the main entities - how are they placed? is there a significant difference of size between setting and object? is the emphasis placed more on one thing than another? figures - their posture: upright and proud or elegant, or bent and awkward? is the painting smeared or distorted, or orderly and complex? the light - bright, or subdued? in still life, are the objects glistening, or tarnished? are they solid, or fractured?