In Defence of Interpretation

994 Words4 Pages
This essay constructs a defence against Susan Sontag’s argument against interpretation. In her essay ‘Against Interpretation’ Sontag voices a clear stand point on her distaste for interpretation of writing and works of art, she assumes “The modern style of interpretation excavates; it digs ‘behind’ the text, to find a sub-text which is the true one”i. She suggests that pieces of creativity are set in their structure and meaning, and that an object, performance or written piece is not to be interpreted and to do otherwise would void it’s true meaning, that interpretation is a superfluous extra.
Sontag herself says “From now until the end of consciousness, we are stuck with the task of defending art”ii, a constant battle against the critics of creativity, the discussion of works of art and their interpretation can be the most vital defence against the people who hate against modern artists and their apparent lack of talent or content.
Many modern artists today come under attack for their work, society hissing against the dot paintings of Damien Hurst, the un-made bed of Tracey Emin and other high profile artists whose work is deemed ‘talentless’. However when the same dismissive people of before are presented with modern art which suggests a ‘talent’, or time consuming element, they will ask “But what does it mean?”. This question is for the lazy and what should first be ask is “What do I see?”.
Art is not just reserved for the rich and socially mobile despite the stigma, and now more than ever art is accessible to the general public, often free, sitting there waiting to be viewed, and to just simply view it is an act of interpretation. What am I seeing? How are the materials reacting with one another? How does it relate to the space? These are all questions of interpretation and when presented for instance with a sculpture, it’s ‘true meaning’ might have a
Open Document