Before you continue, please cast your eyes to Part 1 of this diptych, as well as the original text.
Please enjoy :)
Content versus Form
What Sontag’s argument both starts and centres around is the idea that interpretative theory began problematically and, therefore, is wholly bad. However, she says that a complete overhaul isn’t needed, and that theory can instead be adapted. But the guidelines she gives are unclear, leading to the issue of content versus form. Her meanings are vague, overly abstract. She says that “it is the habit of approaching works of art in order to interpret them that sustains the fancy that there is really such a thing as the content of a work of art.” From my understanding, she is not only referring to subject matter, but also hidden meanings. These being implied themes and messages of a piece. She says that this idea that art includes content “violates art. It makes art into an article for use, for arrangement into a mental scheme of categories.” I examined the essays she referred to as following her method, and all appeared to have a wide focus, looking at broader genres rather than specific works. I’m not entirely convinced at how useful this is. But also I’m having trouble deciphering between content and form. What does she suggest people actually look at? Is she steering the reader away from seeking understanding in art? But what should be the aim of academic works if not to understand?
“The function of criticism should be to show how it is what it is, even that it is what it is, rather than to show what it means.” Whilst I agree with her criticism of interpretative theory, the substitutes she gives are perplexing.
In my basic understanding, she seems to advocate for description of works and enjoying a “sensory experience” of the pieces in question.
Returning to this idea of resistance, she promotes some types/ forms of modern art as being resistant against interpretation: the abstract and non-figurative, the decorative, or the “non-art.” Films are specifically praised for their “directness that entirely frees us from the itch to interpret,” which she cites as being partly because of their status as a relatively new medium.
Could interpretation be useful?
In contradicting Sontag’s argument, I think interpretation is not only useful, but necessary in the study of art history.
Some artists do place meanings and narratives in their works for which they require and encourage the viewer to interpret so as to enjoy their works. This too is part of the experience of art, rather than this just being a sign of authors being “over-generous.” It can create greater engagement with a work as well as the context it’s made in. In this way, political themes specifically require interpretation as, without it, their message is redundant. This is also true of conceptual art, as interpretating meaning can be seen as creating the works with interpretation being essential to the viewer’s experience of the work in question.
For example, Ai Weiwei’s ‘Remembering’ becomes a piece honouring the children who died in the collapse of schools during the 2008 Chinese earthquakes; without interpretation it’s just a pile of artfully arranged schoolchildren’s backpacks.
Secondly, there are hidden narratives which, through placed there by the artist, are in need of specifically the critical interpretative eye. These messages could be racist or sexist, for example. They aren’t always explicit in their views.
For example, the Seganti artwork above appears, at first glance, a delicate pastoral featuring a mother and child, as well as a cow and her calf. The warmth of the palette extends to the shadows, lending a cozy, familial atmosphere to the piece as a whole. Yet whilst we can appreciate this piece aesthetically and enjoy the sensory experience as Sontag advocates for, to ignore the misogynistic narrative behind Segantis’ creation is the accept them and thus to perpetuate them. In this work, the woman is likened to a cow: a domestic subject, rearing a child. The foregrounded figures echo the backgrounded counterparts, suggesting a shared natural instinct that permeates throughout nature. This piece was made at a time of limited role for women outside that of the maternal persuasion, much like animals in the agricultural industry. Yet these limitations are painted here as being an ideal situation, something for the female viewers to aspire towards and the male viewers to enforce.
Therefore, as much as Sukhonos argues that we should stop using art “as a storehouse of information,” it’s actually quite important to do so. The main message I want to take away from all my work, is that we can use art to map social issues throughout the past, and interpretation is essential to this. Within this interpretative gaze is the vocabulary needed to fight against these issues in real life. Well, unlike Sontag, I’d also say that art is part of real-life- it’s not detached from these issues or from context in general but, in fact, is the immediate result of them. And, in many examples, to allow a “work of art we describe to speak in their own language,” is to allow it to speak the language of harm.
These works also disallow others from speaking. Not only of people speaking out against gender roles in the domestic setting, but also of speaking out against colonisation.
While very pleasing aesthetically, the message of the piece, understood through interpretation, is harmful. Even worse would be to voluntarily remain oblivious to this message entirely: the implicit narratives of superiority and inferiority, the context of harm with its place in the former East India House, as well as its perpetuation of the narrative that this cross-cultural exchange was welcomed and non-violent. This piece embodies the limiting of others’ voices, as messy narratives are simplified and people’s ability of interpret the harm of the past is erased under the priority of aesthetic appreciation. It’s through interpretation that the vocabulary for these issues can be uncovered.
Conclusion
And here we have the beginnings of my understanding of Sontag’s theory. It appears to me that she argues that modern interpretative theory aims to uncover hidden meaning, as a continuation of Platonic theory of mimesis and thus of a continued negative view of art as unnecessary and its appearance as entirely suspicious. In her eyes, the approach to art should be one of presenting what art is rather than what it means.
I agree with her ideas, but only to an extent. Interpretation is used in response to critics of art who think its existence needs to be justified and that this interpretation can limit the viewer’s personal experience of the work in question. It also unnecessarily logicizes art and, in turn, sees art which cannot be stifled in this way as inferior. But I also think that interpretation can be useful, specifically in regard to works which are intertwined with social issues. Interpretation allows us to understand these works, and to equip us with the vocabulary to counter the real-life solutions.
Going forward I would like to incorporate Sontag’s philosophy and ideas surrounding how artwork should be approached into my own study of art history. This, as my difficulty in understanding her shows, is a process. I will close with Sukhonos’s quote on Sontag: “She invites us to recover our sense, to learn how to see more, hear more, feel more,” but, I hasten to add, this can be done through the marriage of aesthetic appreciation and interpretation.
Questions to consider:
Should the art forms seen by Sontag as resisting interpretation, also be subject to these social issue-focused interpretative gaze? If so, how?
Where can we draw the line between aesthetic appreciation and interpretation?
Can interpretation always be justified as a suitable approach?
Readings used and further readings:
Currently reading: Do not say we have nothing by Madeleine Thien
Recommendation: Something by Nayeon