Is Understanding The Artist’s Intention The Only Way We Can Interpret Their Work?
Monism, Pluralism & Constructivism
Understanding the artist’s intention is one way of interpreting their work — but could not possibly be the only way.
Many theories support this stance— ranging from curatorial practice and epistemology to philosophical and art-historical perspectives.
Stecker’s chapter ‘Interpretation’ (2013) is a key text, clarifying and classifying key theories of actual intentionalism, monism, pluralism, and proper aim.
Constructivism, discussed by Hein (1991) is concerned with the viewer making meaning based on individual experiential factors, aligning with key aspects of Stecker’s analysis.
‘Strategic Interpretation’, (Raney et al, 2007) validates these theories with research conducted through curatorial practice, offering a multi-faceted, pluralist account of interpretation through international gallery education and visual arts.
Further theoretical discourse pertinent to this argument, such as Kieran’s chapter entitled ‘Value’ (2013), ‘Taste’, as discussed by Korsmeyer (2013) and philosophy on aesthetic judgement in De Clercq’s chapter, ‘Beauty’ (2013) substantiate this view that artist intention is not the only form of interpretation.
Applying these key theoretical points to two very different examples of work by one artist, Antony Gormley, presents a balanced evaluation of whether Gormley’s intention is the only way his works are, or can be, interpreted.
Methodologically, both artworks have been experienced first-hand as primary research.
Secondary research has examined artist intention, interpretation, visual research, articles, interviews, academic journals and theoretical texts provide a contextual foundation for this analysis.
The first example, ‘Another Place’ (Gormley, 1997) Crosby beach, Liverpool is a site-specific, sculptural public artwork which defies the notion of Gormley’s intention as its only acceptable interpretation.
The second example of Gormley’s artwork is ‘Blind Light’, (Gormley, 2007) at Hayward Gallery, London.
This immersive experiential installation demonstrates why we cannot logically consider the artist intention as the single correct interpretation of the work.
Stecker’s chapter ‘Interpretation’ (2013, p.309) defines:
“When we interpret works of art or literature, we are seeking to understand or to appreciate them.
We do this by attempting to discover or ascribe, on some basis, a meaning in or to the work in question, or to determine what significance the work has for us.”
(Stecker, 2013)
This quote identifies the fundamental purpose, process and outcome of interpretation, necessary in order to argue, with clarity, on whether or not understanding Gormley’s artistic intention fulfils interpretative aims.
When a viewer seeks to ‘understand or appreciate’ a work, such as ‘Another Place’ (Gormley, 2007) or ‘Blind Light’ (Gormley, 2007), they may view the piece from diverse points of reference, such as aesthetic merit, educational engagement, imaginative or intellectual access (Lynch, 2007; Crawford, 1974).
To ‘discover or ascribe’ meaning ‘on some basis’ and ‘determine what significance a work has for us’, the viewer will be exploring the work perceptually in an experiential sense, relating their own immediate cognition to associated (recognised) sensations (Hein, 1991; Raney, 2007).
This applies to even the most discerning and learned critic, who is also subject to the conditioning effects of their culture, education and critical understanding (Korsmeyer, 2013; Crawford, 2013).
Our responses are shaped by personal experience, upbringing, socio-economic factors (Bourdieu, 1979) and contextual effects (Raney, 2007) which inform and influence our interpretation of the world around us.
This breadth of collective experience and multiplicity of potential meaning means that it would be prohibitive to the fulfilment of interpretative aims to suggest that Gormley’s intention is the only way his work may be interpreted.
Stecker identifies the view that the artist’s intention is the only correct interpretation of a work as actual intentionalism.
This is clarified as being distinct from biographical criticism, as the two are often misconstrued.
Several points are raised which challenge actual intentionalism, supporting this argument — one of these is the important distinction between intention and action.
What we say and what we do can be very different (Stecker, 2013; Beardsley, 1970; Levinson, 1992; Tolhurst, 1979).
Artist intention can offer insight into interpretation, but does not necessarily comprehensively reflect a work with congruence.
The artist’s intention is dynamic, not static, and will have evolved and altered during the development process of their creation.
Their intentions may also have been discarded before being realised (Stecker), thereby rendering their intention invalid as an accurate, complete interpretation of the final work.
Another argument is whether the viewer can ever truly know the specific intentions of the artist.
Certain aspects of interpretation can only ever be hypothetical and therefore impossible to confirm (Stecker, 2013).
Therefore, as the singular representation of a work’s meaning or significance, artist’s intentions are unreliable and limited as the only true account of a work.
Another point to consider is that neither the artist’s intention nor their interpretation of the work is necessarily the best interpretation (Stecker, 2013).
Contextual, individual, chronological, educational, cultural and experiential factors affect every human being (Hein,1991; Raney, 2007), including the artist.
It is probable that there are limitations, elements or influences of which the artist will be unaware, affecting efficacy and accuracy of their intention as the only correct interpretation of a work.
Applying these ideas on intention and interpretation to ‘Another Place’ (Gormley, 1997), Gormley’s artist statement is largely concerned with the technical and logistical issues surrounding its creation.
On a conceptual level, he does state:
“The idea was to test time and tide, stillness and movement, and somehow engage with the daily life of the beach.
This was no exercise in romantic escapism.”
(Gormley, 2007)
Although Gormley’s intention contributes to deeper understanding of his work, it does not stipulate the spectrum of experience and consequent interpretations which will result from its creation.
Viewers may experience ‘romantic escapism’, but not the artist.
In his Art Basel interview (2013), Gormley discussed the progressive shift away from formal ideals and direct representation, examined in in De Clercq’s chapter ‘Beauty’ (2013).
This signifies multiple subjective interpretations, where the viewer constructs knowledge in direct relevance to their experiences.
For Gormley, inviting the viewer to complete a space, actively engaging in making meaning, is integral to his artistic philosophy and intention.
Gormley himself aligns with Hein’s constructivist learning theory (1991), Raney’s study of ‘Strategic Interpretation’ (2007), and, as the artist, supports my argument that artist intention is definitely not the only way of interpreting works of art.
‘Another Place’ (Gormley, 1997), originally exhibited in Germany, moved to Norway and Belgium before being permanently situated in Liverpool.
Its site-specific intentions could not possibly give a full acount potential meanings, value or symbology when the piece was installed at different sites across Europe.
There will have been a multitude of viewer and site specific interpretations in initial and subsequent geographic locations and cultural contexts (Raney, 2007; Korsmeyer, 2013).
To reject this profusion of individual perception and relevant international appreciation, would contradict Stecker’s definition of interpretation and Gormley’s artistic intention for this immense public artwork.
Stecker identifies the notion that ‘there is only one correct interpretation of an artwork’ as a monist critical perspective (Stecker, 2013; Beardsley 1970; Hirsch 1967; Nehamas 1981).
The argument presented here, that there is a range of possible interpretations, is a critically pluralist perspective (Goldman 1990; Thom 2000).
Stecker’s analysis concludes by reiterating and reaffirming the plurality of interpretation — as opposed to seeking one correct account of a work through discernment of the artist’s intention.
He states that establishing one single proper-aim of interpretation is problematic, due lack of evidence and authority to make a definitive assessment.
The concept of value-maximisation (Goldman (1990) is concerned with multiple interpretations enhancing and accentuating experience (Stecker, 2013; Le Marque, 2002).
It is clearly noted that interpretations aiming at valuable goals are, by definition, valuable (Stecker, 2013).
This does not deny the significance in understanding artist intention, but emphasises that restricting perception of artworks to this single point of reference would compromise the fundamental principles of interpretation.
Stecker observes that “both common-sense and actual practice tell us that there are a number of different interpretative aims” (Stecker, 2013) which correlates with Raney (2007), who reinforces a pluralist outlook on proper-aim in ‘Strategic interpretation’.
Here, curatorial contributors share pluralist tendencies towards constructivist theory — Hein (1991) upholding the importance and ubiquity of independent meaning-making.
These authors represent how viewer interpretation has shifted to the centre of contemporary gallery practice and experience, away from traditional, formal, prescribed knowledge and art-historical philosophy imposed on the viewer (Bourdieu, 2013).
Sophisticated aestheticism concerned with promotion or impediment of aesthetic virtues, such as coherence, complexity, intensity or quality, gives another perspective that asserts pluralism of interpretation (Kieran, 2013).
Ideals of proper aim, monist and pluralist theory can be applied to our second example — ‘Blind Light’. (Gormley, 2007)
The monist ethos would state that there is the only one way Blind Light (Gormley, 2007) may be interpreted.
Actual intentionalism would seek to understand Gormley’s intention as the only true definition of this work’s meaning and significance.
However, this approach would devalue the experiences the piece was created to facilitate.
Because Gormley believes his works should be in dialogue with the viewer, not imposing a preconceived monologue, part of his intention with this piece is that it is not interpreted one-dimensionally.
Acting as a catalyst for interpretation and meaning-making, a piece of work such as ‘Blind Light’ was created for the very purpose of evocative experience and (dis)connection with the self.
Gormley’s preoccupation with the body, spatial awareness, architecture and transformation invite and immerse the viewer in sensory perceptions.
This translates into exponential breadth and scope for interpretation of this piece.
Experiences stimulated by this work are too valuable to reject in favour of a monist principal of one correct interpretation — unless that intention is understood as being one of pluralist interpretation.
Pluralist theory and ideas of value-maximisation mean layers of meaning in a work such as ‘Blind Light’ (Gormley, 2007) are revealed, experienced and appreciated in the pluralist manner the artist intended.
This may include, but resists definition solely by understanding artist intentions when interpreting their works of art.
Reinforced by Stecker’s analysis of interpretation, actual intentionalism, pluralist and monist theories; Raney’s research in visual arts curation and gallery education, and constructivist theory outlined by Hein.
Clearly, interpretation of a work of art is a multi-faceted continuum of diverse, individual experience.
Meaning-making is ever-evolving, impossible to confine, and utterly essential in our search for truth.
___
Bibliography
Hein, G. (1991) The Museum and the Needs of the People. Exploratorium [online]. Available from: <http://www.exploratorium.edu/ifi/resources/research/constructivistlearning.html> [accessed 28 October 2014].
Raney, K. Lynch, H Strategic Interpretation. London: Engage 20, pp.2–27.
Gaut, B; Lopes, D. eds. Routledge Companion to Aesthetics. 3rd ed. London, Routledge.pp.46–55.
Additional References
Art Basel (2013) Antony Gormley: Making Space [online]. Available from: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phzueYwzmzs> [accessed 10 January 2015].
Gormley, A. (2007) Blind Light [installation]. London: Hayward Gallery. Available from: <http://www.antonygormley.com/projects/item-view/id/241> [accessed 10 January 2015].
