4 Answers

  1. It's too hard to answer this question. Well, because you can slide down to the level of taste and perception of a particular person. Well, the very concept of “meaning” can be juggled.

    The most important question is where is this border when meaning is there and when it is not? For example, the author believes that he has put meaning in the work, but the viewer/listener does not see this meaning and concludes that it does not exist at all.
    �Also, many people understand meaning as the ability to “read” the work. If it can't be read, then it doesn't make sense. Naturally, these are not correct judgments, but they exist.
    �Many authors deliberately reject all sorts of meanings and put pressure on emotions and even on some kind of unconscious or vice versa, the so-called stream of consciousness.
    �Naturally, meaning is not a function. Let's just take this as an axiom.

    I do not know how to answer your question to be honest. If you see the meaning in the work, then it is for you personally. There is hardly any objective meaning. Have you seen Kandinsky's paintings? Personally, I see a lot of meaning in them. But I won't be able to convey this meaning with just words or something. You will come and look at his picture and say that there is no sense in it. Or here is a picture of a broom that stands against the wall http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-QukneriJSGg/Vp07Fjyv1TI/AAAAAAAAP4s/90-bapLeJa8/s640/morals_of_vision_e.jpg. Do you see the meaning and idea? Someone sees, and someone does not, but the work does not become something else from this.
    �Making sense in art has always been difficult and will continue to be so.

    And so in general, yes, there must be a meaning in the work on the one hand. On the other hand, it doesn't have to be “readable” unambiguously. And not everyone will necessarily see this meaning. That is, it is all a matter of perception, competence in the field of art, experience, taste, etc. And one thing I can say for sure: The author definitely does not owe anyone anything. Put a certain meaning -his business. Whether others see the point or not is their problem. Of course, you need to build a dialogue with the viewer/listener, but there is such a gap between the viewer / listener and the author….

  2. If the work doesn't have an idea , then what will all the sofa art critics explain?
    No, this cannot be allowed in any way, there must be an idea! And even if it was not originally there, then it is necessary to find it and fasten it.

  3. Does a work of art have to have a meaning or an idea that it is trying to express?( photo, picture, song etc)?

    If we reduce a number of problems contained in the original formulation of the question to one that seems to be the most fundamental (general): does a work of art have meaning? – the answer is yes: yes, a work of art has a meaning. All other problems guessed in the original question (mandatory meaning, localization of meaning in the work itself, the necessity of meaning for the artist (author), attribution of meaning to the author or viewer/reader, expressiveness of meaning, etc.) require clarification.

    The phenomenon of meaning (or idea, but in its Platonic sense) presupposes the universal connectedness and definition of a part from the whole, the correlation of a single thing with a single universe. Such coherence itself, which is dogmatically postulated in religion, speculatively assumed in philosophy, and objectively constructed or modeled in art (i.e., through material and ideal objects), forms its own semantic constitution (dimension) this or that relevant activity. It raises this activity above the natural and social practice of human empirical life, which (the practice) does not have such a” big “content that does not coincide with its direct content, which is aimed at preserving and reproducing this empirical life, i.e. in the strict sense it is “meaningless”.:)

    Item (material, ideal, virtual, etc.) in one way or another, a person who falls into this context of universal connectivity (created in its field, brought in from outside, creating it, deforming it, destroying it) already has meaning, regardless of the subject (author or “author”) with whom he can be connected in this “hit”. And specific circumstances such “hits”, so to speak, the trajectory of (the author's intent and its implementation, reception by critics or the public) and localization (“final” estimates place the product) form or that the contents of this sense. Thus the meaning of a work of art unit it is (and it means that it is required for the work, if not, it is not art), but the content of meaning (semantic content, interpretation) – multiple.

    And this multiplicity of meaning contents (although the expression “multiplicity of meanings” is more common and common) is set not only on the side of the author or critic (their subjective and objective circumstances), but also on the side of the viewer/reader. And, given that the era of canonical samples of works and their classical interpretations is rapidly passing away, the” responsibility ” of the viewer/reader for meaning increases. As “our everything”hoped for us:

    .. And I will be glorious
    as long as there is a single Peet alive in the sublunary world…

    The obligatory meaning of the work for the author as a kind of conscious investment of some ideological content in the texture of the work (plot, image, etc.) is quite acceptable for arts based on the word. But not always the conscious intention of the author will be perceived by the reader in the expected way. And in general, here the attribution of the author's opus to art will be determined by its artistic, not ideological qualities. This applies even more to nonverbal arts.�

    Paradoxically (in relation to the wording of the original question), but the recipient – reader, viewer, listener, etc. – will be required to have the meaning of the work. Mandatory not in the sense of extracting a ready-made meaning in the process of reading, listening, viewing and accompanying reflection (although this is also a possible and good result), but in the sense of having attention and respect for the author's artistic work; subtlety and literacy of one's own artistic sense, as if it were brought up on some samples; the resulting sensitivity as the ability to perceive the new, unusual; the courage not only to reject classical interpretations, but also to formulate (at least for yourself) and offer your own… As M. Mamardashvili said, if I'm not mistaken ,the difference between Dante's “Divine Comedy” and soap ads is not in themselves, but in who reads them and how.

    Something like that 😉 Good luck!

  4. There are different works of art and not quite art. For example, Shishkin's painting “Morning in the Pine Forest” is undoubtedly a work of art, but does it make any sense? Bear cubs crawl on a fallen pine tree. Yes, we can now start digging, stick on some historical fact and say – ” yes, that's what he meant!” … but did Shishkin have a task in the picture to carry meaning? I think he was born with a story and he just decided to capture it on canvas, so that it was beautiful. And it happens when they take you and throw the trash can on the floor and say: “you don't understand anything! This is an installation with a deep meaning that you cannot comprehend.” So it turns out that somewhere the meaning is mandatory, and somewhere it is a work of art.

Leave a Reply