Have you noticed that high art is "nothing"? That is, everyone sees what they want to see. Analogies are made by the viewer himself, but it is impossible to prove their authenticity?

By Category :

3 Answers

  1. Multiple interpretations arise when we don't understand the author's intent. When we feel uncomfortable after watching or reading it, we start coming up with our own explanatory concept based on the impressions we just received and the knowledge we have. At the same time, it often happens that the versions look unconvincing, and some even seem fantastic. As a result-the feeling that the work is about nothing and everything at once. Or that the author is deliberately misleading you.

    In fact, there are no obscure works of art. In each, even the most incomprehensible, ” there is a very specific artistic statement, and there are “people who can give quite accurate feedback. But professional critics, by the way, do not always manage to accurately decipher the idea of a work to the reader/viewer; it is not uncommon for critics to engage in demagoguery.

    In most cases, understanding depends on the context. At the beginning of the noughties, PR people enthusiastically read “Generation P ” Pelevin, while representatives of other professions found some details of the plot strange.�

    To understand the meaning of the black square For Malevich, it is important to immerse yourself in the atmosphere of disputes about the purpose and ways of development of art at the beginning of the XX century. Delve into the essence of cultural disputes. To understand the devastating impact that photography had on academic painting (at the beginning of the 20th century, the portrait genre was almost disappearing, and artists preferred to work in an area that was beyond the capabilities of photography). And then Malevich's desire to abandon the plot and move to the plane of pure aesthetics will seem quite rational.

    So if we are in context, we understand. If out of context-sometimes we understand ,sometimes we don't, sometimes we come up with a new interpretation. To illustrate this last point, let us take the so-called Fayum portrait, which is sometimes presented as an example of the portrait art of antiquity, forgotten in the period of the Christian Middle Ages. In reality, Fayum portraits are funerary masks that are not directly related to the appearance of the deceased (in any case, we cannot compare the original with the copy). However, it is precisely portraits that we want to see in them, and we call them portraits. This is a common cognitive error when wishful thinking is passed off as real.

    You can say to yourself: if I don't understand it, then this work is not addressed to me. And I will not spend any effort to decipher this artistic message. This is a normal �option.

    But if you still want to understand and interpret works of art (as I understand it, we are talking about arthouse cinema and similar areas of other art forms), the easiest way is to learn how to divide what you see into several components. For example, on the plot, genre, technical features, etc. Start analyzing each parameter separately, comparing it with the parameters of other works. Identify understanding criteria and apply them to your works. Moreover, it is desirable to verbalize or write down impressions, because speaking thoughts aloud we understand better.�

    Any work of art is built on a rational basis. You can't shoot a movie without an idea or storyboard. Actors need to explain their tasks and clarify the details of the script. Stage managers need to decipher images. And if there is a rational basis in the idea of the film, why not try to identify it?

  2. And art doesn't have to be “about anything”. There is art with a straightforward description and a clear meaning, and there is art that is layered, not unambiguous, not understandable, etc.
    �Of course, I understand that the question is not answered with a question, but nevertheless, let's ask you a few questions that may make you think:
    �- How to prove that the Mona Lisa(just as an example) is more authentic art than Guernica?(a painting by Picasso. Google to help) ? Well, or vice versa, how to prove that Guernica is a genuine art, but the Mona Lisa is not?
    – What is the instrumental music about?
    -And what is your or someone else's life about? Is it possible to give a single correct answer here?
    – What is high art? What makes it so? The fact that for you or someone else it is “nothing”? Or are there any other criteria? Or maybe the word “high” itself is not appropriate? Or is the height of art the skill with which it is made? Or is it the scale of the art object? Or is it all the same multi-layered ambiguity?�
    -What is “not high” art about?

  3. that's why I don't like long-winded arguments about a certain picture.

    I love object art.

    what I can see, touch, understand.

    that is, something simple.
    metaphors that are swirled on metaphors and generate associations and analogies-this is good for people who have a thousand images in their head for each word.

    I think straightforwardly and ahem… quite primitive.

    therefore, for me, high art is just an attempt to cast a shadow on the fence

Leave a Reply

Categories