Interpreting a Work's Meaning

The last Art foundational support we will observe is how a work’s meaning is interpreted.

Our thoughts about how works should be do not always line up to the works themselves. Psychologist Rodolf Arnheim (1904-2007) stated: “we feel lost in the presence of objects that make sense only to undiluted vision, and we look for help to the more familiar medium of words.” [i] Trying to put experiences “into words” is natural. The words we use will enlarge or narrow how we understand experiences. I remember watching a dance performance which touched me so deeply, tears involuntarily flowed out my eyes; the dancers’ embodied passions stirred and triggered emotions at a level deeper than words relate, bringing tears to my eyes. Only after I had time to process it, could I put words to the experience. The word choice we use may clearly convey the experience or the words could misdirect others in the experience, either unintentionally or intentionally. [ii] And, many times the stirred emotions elicit memories and thoughts that has nothing to do with the work, which may cause confusion.
When our senses interact with a work, our mind seeks to translate the sensations by identifying its patterns and relationships, interpreting how the elements relate together or not. Our mind then assigns meaning to the perceived configurations. There are three basic methods we use, as we try to understand a work’s perceived forms and relationships. The first method, we identify the artist’s intention with the work. The next method, we see only our own ideas about the work. Or the other method, we may recognize the artist’s intent and see additional meaningful interpretations.
When we see work for its individual self, then we usually align with the maker’s intent, at least close enough. For most people, they may see an artist’s aim and have many supplementary thoughts about the work.
Society taught us we cannot perceive the artist’s meaning, so we do not look for it. Therefore, we impose our biased ideas upon the work. These separate thoughts usually have nothing to do with the work.

Do we perceive the references?

The degree a work is grasped by an observer, depends on if the references a maker uses are understood. Artists will use ideas and references that are Artistic—about a medium's elements, its arrangement and execution, and Conceptual—touching Religion, Nature, Psychology, Mythology, Science, History, Literature, Culture, or some other referent such as Birth, Love, Joy, Pain, Death, or some other area of life.
Let us look at a historic-religious example where it may help to know the subject’s meaning: The Crucifixion (of Jesus), depicted by countless artists over the last 1700 years; a few famous artists since the Renaissance depicting The Crucifixion were, Matthias Grunewald (1470-1528, German), Michelangelo (1475-1564, Italian), Peter Paul Rubens (1577-1640, Flemish), Rembrandt van Rijn (1606-1669, Dutch), Jean Leon Gerome (1824-1904, French), Thomas Eakins (1844-1916, American), George Rouault (1871-1958, French), and Eric Gill (1882-1940, English). For us to understand any of the pictures made by the above artists, we may need to understand Christ’s life, at least somewhat, to realize how the depiction conveys the event’s meaning. As we look at artists’ illustrations of The Crucifixion, observe most did not make historically realistic representations but culturally applicable portrayals for their society. Each artist sought to bring out an aspect of the event, presenting it for their time and culture.
Understanding a work’s meaning is not necessary for its initial pleasure. We can appreciate a work aesthetically without grasping its subject matter. But, to go beyond the surface, even form a relationship with the work, then it is necessary to dig into the work in order to know what it is about.
However, there are many that believe we cannot know a work. More accurately, many believe society’s indoctrination that the system of symbols (iconography) comprising words, movements, images, and/or sounds does not mean what the author meant. Many people think an artist’s intended imagery usage is a “fiction,” because meanings are meaningless; but doesn’t it seem these individuals conveniently overlook their own fictions? Frequently, a work’s subject is explained, not according to its intended point of view, but through the observer’s personal bias. This brings the question to my mind, “What are our works being redefined as?” [iii]

Explicit and Implicit meanings
Philosophers and linguist, describe a work’s obvious meaning with the term “explicit meaning,” which “is the sum of the things that a [work] presents on its surface.”[iv] For instance, the movie Star Wars: A New Hope (1977) is about good triumphing over evil.
Moving beyond the obvious. Philosophizers’ debate what is under the work’s surface; its “implicit meaning”: which “is an association, connection, or inference that a viewer makes on the basis of the given (explicit) [work].” [v] Being aware of added ideas and connections may sometimes enhance or clarify the work’s explicit meaning; this happens when we look at a work in its own context.
The picture category of Self-Portraits—artists make images of themselves—will help clarify the difference between explicit and implicit meaning; I use this subject because it has clearer intentions than other subjects loaded with associations that could divert us. In various museums around the world, we may see artists’ self-depictions. Too many to list here.
Looking at a depiction I made of myself, you may respond either positively or negatively (I would hope positively). In my self-portrait, I put my own thoughts in the work, turning these thoughts into the work’s inherent meaning. [vi] A work contains clues directing the way to interpret its meaning. As we attempt to discover the picture’s many clues, our sense of the work automatically aligns us within the range of its intended meaning. Keep in mind that some works’ meaning will not be obvious but will take time to figure out.

Look online at pictures of artists’ self-portraits in museums. Determine the explicit meaning and what inferences did the artist put into the picture?

[i] Arnheim, Rudolf, Art and Visual Perception, p. v
[ii] Storr, Anthony, Music and the Mind, p. 67 “One consequence of the separation of music from words is to render meaning of music equivocal. Because words define its content, we know what we are intended to feel when we hear a song in a language with which we are familiar; but we cannot be sure when we hear a symphony. Disputes about meaning of music, which are heated, are centered around ‘absolute’ music: that is, they concern instrumental music which does not refer to anything outside itself. When music accompanies words, or is closely associated with public events such as triumphs or funerals, questions of its meaning hardly arise.”

[iii] Berenson, Bernard, Aesthetics and History, p. 29 “Every real work of art is already a simplification and interpretation. To simplify it yet further, and to interpret it more penetratingly or subtly, may reduce it to a concept.”

[iv] Barsam, Richard, Looking at Movies, p. 318 Barsam states our ability to discern a movie’ explicit meaning is dependent on our ability to notice its associations and relationships. He gives Star Wars (George Lucas, 1977) as an example.
[v] ibid, p. 318
[vi] Gardner’s Art Through the Ages, 10th Ed., p. 7 “The iconography of a work should not be confused with its meaning. Iconography can show us what a work represents, what it is about, but its meaning depends upon the way the representation is made (its style) and the cause of the way of representation (the artist’s purpose or intention). Works may have the same subject matter and imagery but differ markedly in style and purpose. For example, the Christian theme of the Crucifixion has been represented in different ways in different times and places. Pious Christians will reverence these for what they represent. They are not to be concerned about stylistic peculiarities that might reveal levels of meaning not immediately given.
It would also seem at first that style is so bound up with meaning that it is impossible to separate them. But just as the iconography of what is represented does not exhaust the meaning of a work, so style alone does not disclose it. Nor are the procedures of attribution more than auxiliary in the elucidation of meaning.”