Interpretting art?

Post Reply New Topic

Am I the only one who just doesn't get it? Poetry, paintings, just about anything, unless the artist or author expresses whatever they mean directly, its just pretty much lost on me. If O go on a tour of a museum, and they say things like "this was meant to symbolize this" I'm usually like "where on earth did they come up with that?" Is this an Aspie thing?

^^^ That's me to a tee! I don't get any of that stuff.

I do well with metaphor, allegory, symbolism, ect. I can interpret it accurately and apply one form to many situations so I detect a common pattern. I have no problems with that.

I don't even understand how art critics think they can objectively evaluate a piece of art, especially modern art. They can look at a canvas painted a solid color with a single stripe or shape and come up with all kinds of meanings for it. Yet if I tried to paint something similar they would probably think its crap.

The whole idea of "Art Interpretation" is pretentious.

I mean, if I like a painting and it will fit over my sofa, then I'll buy it. If there are pretty girls in skin-tight leotards bouncing around on stage, then I'll buy a front-row ticket.

But if some arrogant artsy-fartsy type looks down his nose at me for my indifference or repugnance towards his blood-speckled sputum on a wedding veil stapled to a hubcap, then I'll not appreciate his or anyone else's attempts to "interpret" its meaning to me, since I've already interpreted it on my own as trash, plain and simple, and all the posturing and pontificating to prove otherwise will be wasted on me.

I don't think it's an Aspie thing. I think it's just that a lot of art these days requires too much by way of explanation. You know, like something wins the Turner Prize and it requires a placard bigger than the exhibit itself to say what the conceptual subtext of the piece is.

I think artists are in some cases making out their audiences to be dumb for 'not understanding' the art, when in fact they're not using the skill to put across their meaning in the art itself.

wow - fnord - nice one!


iI am a painter. i live in that realm. and i doubt i am pretentious.

art interpretation is just another language- like computer programming or maths. it has its own logic and it has its own patterns which hinge often on universal motifs and analogy and metaphor as mentioned above. really good artists start developing their own visual language which has meaning to them and others - just like a really good mathematician does or a really good physicist.

sure, the art scene is full of total W*#@kers....but they are not the real deal.
art's a good thing - it's like music. it can enrich us.


And by the way, a really fantastic painting of a series of pretty girls bouncing around on stage, with this guy in the audience waving around his front-row ticket and wooh-hooing it up, just sold at auction at Sotheby's for 6 million bucks.

it was titled "Portrait of the 6 million dollar man."

The thing about art... is that you're never "Wrong". Art is about "intent" (ie. the artists intention creating the piece) and interpretation (how YOU understand a painting).

Art is one of my obsessions, so I am very obnoxious about it. I think a lot of times OTHER PEOPLES IDEAS OF WHAT SOMETHING SHOULD BE f**k up our enjoyment of a piece (not just AS people, all people). There seems to be this whole pretentious subcultural of art-elite that like to detract meaning from a piece, or worship it beyond all understanding. Half the time I am pretty sure the artist is just messing with our minds...

But I still enjoy it, the textures colors form, its like I'm hallucinating except I'm concious. The desire to touch everything is (almost) irrisistable.

I think.... you should stop trying to understand art from other peoples perspectives. You are not going to see the same thing they see even if you were NS. Art is an intensely personal experience, just... absorb it...

(sorry if none of this made sense, it's just how I feel about art)

HAhaha, awesome coment.
A friend of mine and I argue about this. She says "conceptual art is a bunch of crap stuck together "metaphorically" to "symbolise" some ret*d s**t, becuz the "artist" is actually a wanna-be writer with no talent"

I, on the other hand enjoy interpreting (AND I'm a writer who loves metaphors, :p), but I only enjoy conceptual art if the artist DOESN'T try to explain it... If you have to write a 4 paragraph explanantion, your thought process wasn't clear/ consistant or your expression failed miserably & I am not interested in an "artists" justification of why his piece has no effect on me beyond the production of contempt.

Art is expression, not interpretation. The former comes from within and is "spiritual," while the latter is heavily trope-laden and pure artifice. If I don't like what an artist has expressed, then all of the "interpretation" in the world won't make me like it any more.


Art enriches the artist - at least, those that are willing and able to produce something that sells. Too bad that the profit motive is demeaned as "Selling Out" by those very W*#@kers you mentioned.


If it's done on black velvet, and includes Elvis playing poker with his dog, I'll give them 7 million, and throw in a vintage 1970s Lava Lamp.




Look, I'm not saying that interpretive art is worthless, but if the end result can only be interpreted "correctly" by the artist and his/her cronies, then it is not likely to appeal much to me.

Personally, I prefer impressionist paintings, smooth-flowing sculptures, and music that is Celtic traditional/modern or chamber music in the classical or baroque mode. A classic waltz is more my style than anything a post-modern interpretive dance troupe is willing to perform (spandex-clad nymphettes notwithstanding).

When it comes to art, I may be a philistine, but at least I'm an honest philistine!

I took a Philosophy of Art class... it was enlightening and led to this interesting occurence:

Me: *walking past an outdoor sculpture which consists of several large rusty-looking pipes and which, honestly, the average person would assume to be construction leftovers and not art*
Person Behind Me, To Their Friend: That's just not art.
Me: *turns around and looks at Person, probably with the "aspie stare" or whatever*
Person: Obviously some people don't agree.

Now, I should have made some intelligent comment about what I was studying, but I didn't, because the things in my head don't come out of my mouth fast enough.

Anyway, I'm not much interested in interpreting art (and by "art", I mostly mean "stationary visual art"). While interpretation of abstract art annoys me, what also bothers me is interpretation of ancient art (for example, Egyptian murals), where I read an explication and the expert is assigning meaning to objects that I didn't even see until they were pointed out.

So this is my basic protocol for enjoying art.

Is the art visually pleasing to me?
--Yes
----Keep looking at it.
--No
----Walk away.

Simple and effective.

It might give one an impression of pretentiousness but it's a fun intellectual exercise for the one doing the interpretting. Even better are the oooos and aaaaahs that follow such an event.

Last edited by ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo on 22 Dec 2008, 5:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I went on the Wine Train up in Napa last year, and stopped at one of the larger, more well-know wineries. There, our guide ended the tour with a little lesson on wine-tasting and appreciation of "The Vintner's Art." She told us that all that fancy-schmancy double-talk that somaliers use is for the express purpose of driving up the price through intimidation and embarrassment, and that we should only buy wine because we like it, and not because of some high-minded talk about legs and noses.

I wouldn't buy art just because I liked it. I would buy it because of it's appreciative value. Why else buy it?

I prefer a sound portfolio of mixed stocks, preferably in the health-care, pharmaceutical, and energy-development markets. Otherwise, the most expensive painting I own is a certified Kincaid piece that someone gave me a while back.

well fnord - at least this is good discussion. i daresay i agree wtih you on some things.
although i would query some of your views.... but enjoy the way you are saying them now. cezanne was considered a farce in his day as were the impressionists. in fact, scorned upon at the time and now perceived as the stuff we like to hang on our walls.
i am similarly opposed to some of th post-modernist clap trap that is around, actually. if you want to get into a fantastic art critic and see about interpretation - check out Sister Wendy! Her discourse on the potmodern "Piss Christ" on You tube is excellent. she breaks the work down in terms of its averageness...which is pretty much how i feel about it.
(SIster Wendy isn't a spandex clad nymphette- alas - but SHE is cool ) - even thought i cannot quite agree with her Catholic views.)



as for the lava lamp and black velvet - perhps you might like to add Gary Wright and Dreamweaver to the general mood of the room..... ( i kid you not. i love dremweaver.....) we may be on a similar wavelength here.