should art be explained

[Anonymous]

or left up to interpretation?

Should artists risk having their work interpreted incorrectly or have it be dismissed. Is there a flat answer for this?

Does explaining art take away from the experience of the viewer?

When you listen to music or watch a movie do you prefer to get what you get out of it - and attach it to whatever personal thoughts you have, or do you prefer to have it explained to you.

Which is more fullfilling to you as a viewer/listener? Have you ever really liked someones work for personal reasons and then been given an explaination of meaning for it, and it ended up ruining that work for you?

Or, even though something is explained to you - say a song's lyrics - does having been given the meaning behind it not alter your personal interpretation of it?


This thread was inspired by Rez - hope that doesn't ruin it for you now that you know the secret behind it

[James]

It really depends on the type of art.

[Captain Robo]

Some art should be explained.

Although I like to interpret things for myself, I think a huge mess of tangled wire would require some explanation to be different from just that: a mess.

Modern art should require some explanation.

Older art is kind of self-explanitory.

[FS]

I'm not sure. I think if a work of art has a specific meaning to it, that's best left up to interpretation, so not explained. If it, however, has a message, then it probably should be explained.

When I look at art, I usually judge it very plainly on what feelings it conveys to me and, basically, if I think it looks pretty (disturbing, imposing, intruiging, etc). I don't really take the artist's intentions into account.

[Helm]

Art that is supposed to serve a function, as in any social such, should definately be explained, or in the best case, not need any explaining at all. Art that is introspective, and serves the need of personal expression, regardless of it's being understood or not by the general public doesn't stand to gain anything by being explained. This is the same old argument of 'social art' and 'art for art'. There's art that could be both, and in which case the matter lies in which of the two - the social or the personal - the artist deems more important.

Abstract art, by definition is not something to explain. It's supposed to reflect differently on every man, and imposing your own (even if you're the artist) definition on others means that you should not have been making abstract art in the first place.

[Anonymous]

I am an art communist

[James]

It's just, I think when it comes to drawing a scene and/or people, there will probably be a need to explain certain things about it. But if you just cockslap a canvas with your paint-coated dilly dingy, then it's not really a piece anyone needs a story about.

[theapportioner]

A somewhat Derridian point of view -- all art (abstract or not) is subject to interpretation that is independent of the artist's intentions. That being said, I also think it's interesting to look at things from the artist's perspective, as a historical/biographical exercise.

[James]

All I know is, if I had drawn or painted a scene or something, I would end up being very displeased if people didn't understand it.

[Helm]

Derrida can kiss my fucking ass.

[hardcrow]

I for one never explain my artwork, I may talk about technique, where the idea came from, but my art is something that needs little explaining. I usually ask on how the person feels when they look at it. That means more to me. If I can make someone "feel", more importantly without me asking them if they do, means a successful piece IMHO.

Them trying to “figure it out” is not important…

[The Retro Kat]

The way I figure, It shouldn't be explained. The artist's intent should only be a visual guide, or point you in a direction. It should be what the viewer thinks is the meaning, which, overall, gives the peice of art more meaning.