How far should we go?
Reflection on "Against Interpretation" by Susan Sontag
I recently read an essay by Susan Sontag named “Against Interpretation”. The following notes are what I took during the process of reading:
1
Assumption that art is always figurative and mimetic.
Plato: art = imitation of an imitation. Not particularly useful, nor, true.
Aristotle: art = elaborated lie. Not true, but has certain value (as a form of therapy -> art provokes emotions)
The defense of the problematic theory that art is mimetic gives birth to the idea to separate "form" with "content", making content essential and form accessory. But is that idea true?
Most modern artists and critics discarded the theory of art as representation of an outer reality, but instead thinks of art as subjective expression. Even though this new theory is widely believed, it is agreed upon that a work of art = the content, that a work of art always says something. (abstract art? decorative art?)
Commonly, our task when doing art is going to be about defending art by interpreting what the artwork says.
2
The author claims that we need to overthrow that obligation of defending art, because defense of art is excessive under contemporary situations.
The idea that every artwork has a content is obstructing our understanding of art.
"What the overemphasis on the idea of content entails is the perennial, never consummated project of interpretation. And, conversely, it is the habit of approaching works of art in order to interpret them that sustains the fancy that there really is such a thing as the content of a work of art"
3
What is interpretation? an action of the mind following the rules of interpretation.
What are the rules?
Interpretation, on its simplest sense is picking elements from an artwork. X,Y,Z. And says that X is not really A, that the element in the artwork has some significance beyond what is shown on the surface.
In the old-school style of interpretation, it sets to resolves the clear meaning of the text and the demands of the reader.
4
Interpretation, the author seems to think, is reactionary, poisons our sensibilities, and is the revenge of the intellect upon art (in the modern world).
Even more though, interpretation is the revenge of the intellect upon the world, shaping the current world, molding it, turning this world into a world full of shadows and "meanings"
5
Interpretation tames the work of art, reducing it to make ourselves comfortable.
But indeed, interpretation is our way to make sense of art, of literature in particular, today.
6
Interpretation forcefully take over the artwork from the hands of the artist. Whether the artists intended or not, the artworks are brutally dissected and interpretation by critics.
"It is always the case that interpretation of this type indicates a dissatisfaction (conscious or unconscious) with the work, a wish to replace it by something else. Interpretation, based on highly dubious theory that a work of art is composed of items of content, violates art. it makes art into an article for use, for arrangement into a mental scheme of categories."
7
Designed to flee from interpretation, a lot of today's art actually becomes non-art, without any content.
8
What kind of criticism, of commentary on the arts, is desirable today?
1. Formal analysis considering more about form
2. Analysis concerning more about the appearance and sensuous surface of art. Preserving sharpness, not overproducing
9
Emotional experiences and sensory experiences have been taken for granted today with over production, over interpretation, losing sharpness in our observations.
Our task shall not be to figure out more meaning, but to cut back on the meaning, and to try to see the thing at all
Interpretation should try to show X=X, and how the artist reveal that X=X. Interpretation should not try to show that X = Y.
I hope the notes have intrigued you to read the original text on your own. If not, then enjoy my own distilled version of the text. However, I have to say that the original essay is well written.