Go home!



NOTE: This is a fan page.
Dr. Leithart does not have a Facebook account.

RECENT ENTRIES
-Moving Day
-Senecan Pepys
-Gentlemanly Ethics
-Crossed out
-Seneca in English
-Sermon notes
-Pop Culture
-Unchained Bible
-Res Publica
-Spiritual commerce
-Draw near to hear
-Musical evangelism
-Voice of the Martyrs
-Trinity Institute: Norman Shepherd Says
-Trinity Institute: A Student Perspective
-For My Name’s Sake
-Iron sinews
-Sermon notes
-Seeking worshipers
-Responsive craft
CATEGORY ARCHIVES
  • LINKS
    - Biblical Horizons
    - Covenant Worldview Institute
    - Theologia
    FEED

    CONTACT

    Comments:
    leithart@leithart.com

    Problems:
    webmaster@leithart.com





    |
    |

    Art: Interpretation and meaning

    [Print] | [PDF] | [Email]

    In her essay “On Interpretation,” Susan Sontag argues that interpretation that seeks the “meaning” of a work of art is always destructive.  She says, “It is always the case that interpretation of this type indicates dissatisfaction (conscious or unconscious) with the work, a wish to replace it with something else. Interpretation, based on the highly dubious theory that a work of art is composed of items of content, violates art. It makes art into an article for use, for arrangement into a mental scheme of categories.”  Instead of “decoding” or “searching for meaning,” the critic should be attending to the formal features and the effect of a work of art.

    If Sontag means that there is a necessary moment of receptivity in any response to a work of art, of course she’s right.  And she’s right too that responses to art can become so larded over with interpretations that the work gets lost.  But renouncing the search for meaning as such seems foolhardy and nearly impossible.  As soon as we talk about art, we’re providing an “interpretation” of some sort.

    And we cannot help talking about art.

     

     

    posted by Peter J. Leithart on Monday, March 21, 2011 at 6:33 am