4 ms·

> I believe that no interpretation of an artwork can be right or wrong. This is objectively wrong. The Girl Wearing a Pearl Earring is not a statement about fa

> I believe that no interpretation of an artwork can be right or wrong. This is objectively wrong. The Girl Wearing a Pearl Earring is not a statement about fascism. The Spotify logo is not a depiction of child labor. Now, this artist may feel that way about their own work (and that's neat!), but it is a huge overreach to apply it to all others. Every artist is different. I am so tired of these conversations about art as if it's a mystical monolith. No, you don't get to make blanket statements about literally all art.

sophacles 4y ago
Why does the artist get to dictate my response to their work? Why should they get to dictate my understanding of it? Those should be the role of the viewer. (BTW, my statement cannot be disagreed with - I am the creator here and you are merely a consumer of it, therefore the very notion that you get an opinion or response is objectively wrong).
- phailhaus 4y ago
  > BTW, my statement cannot be disagreed with - I am the creator here and you are merely a consumer of it, therefore the very notion that you get an opinion or response is objectively wrong Nice try, but you can still disagree with the artist. But if I said "your statement is clearly defending murderers", you could say that my interpretation of your statement is wrong.
  - sophacles 4y ago
    Why do you get to dictate my response to an artist. Why do you get to dictate what I meant when I'm the artist? You get to interpret it and understand it as a defense of murderers. I find that to be an unreasonable interpretation, born of a mind that is desperately trying to force the world to conform to it, rather than existing in the world as it comes. But that's my response, not a dictation what you meant when you said it. Maybe you meant something else, maybe you found that it reminded you of a murderer you met once at a bar, or maybe it reminds you of stuff you said prior to committing murder, or maybe you're just being silly. Maybe you just think that way. I dunno - I often find that what I intend to create and what I actually create differ quite often, even in a medium I'm fairly good at (code or food for example). It makes me doubt that I can dictate what it's really about to me - let alone what its supposed to be about to you. (honestly try it out sometime, see how many people can guess what you were thinking before you wrote that gnarly bit of code, or if they can say what you're thinking about it after it's done). There's a lot of brain science out there that suggests a lot of "why i did that" is post-hoc rationalization rather than a true "why i did that". I don't see why creation is exempt from that.
xook 4y ago
Nowhere on that website was there a "blanket statement" about all art. They said "I believe," not "It is stated fact." I also share the opinion that having no interpretation can be either or since often I have no interpretation outside of "it looks neat" for something that later I find out has deep meaning for the author that is shared by others. I don't personally see it, but that's what I think.
- phailhaus 4y ago
  Sure, but if you said "This art is just trying to be neat", you'd be wrong. What you're basically saying is "how I feel when I look at art is how I feel when I look at art", which is a meaningless statement. Like, sure? But we're talking about interpretations of art, not the validity of your emotions, which can certainly be correct or not depending on the artist. I think the author has conflated the two because in their art, they are explicitly inviting you to draw your own interpretations. That's not true of all artists.
ALittleLight 4y ago
The Spotify logo could be, to someone, a depiction of child labor. Suppose a child is forced to work at Spotify. That child, or people who know the child, could come to think of the Spotify logo as representing child labor.
- phailhaus 4y ago
  I think that's different, that's your emotional association with the logo. I'm making a distinction between your emotional reaction to a work of art (always valid), and your interpretation of it. Spotify's logo is not meant to represent child labor. It would be incorrect to say "Spotify's logo is a depiction of child labor."

sophacles 4y ago

Why does the artist get to dictate my response to their work? Why should they get to dictate my understanding of it? Those should be the role of the viewer. (BTW, my statement cannot be disagreed with - I am the creator here and you are merely a consumer of it, therefore the very notion that you get an opinion or response is objectively wrong).

phailhaus 4y ago
> BTW, my statement cannot be disagreed with - I am the creator here and you are merely a consumer of it, therefore the very notion that you get an opinion or response is objectively wrong Nice try, but you can still disagree with the artist. But if I said "your statement is clearly defending murderers", you could say that my interpretation of your statement is wrong.
- sophacles 4y ago
  Why do you get to dictate my response to an artist. Why do you get to dictate what I meant when I'm the artist? You get to interpret it and understand it as a defense of murderers. I find that to be an unreasonable interpretation, born of a mind that is desperately trying to force the world to conform to it, rather than existing in the world as it comes. But that's my response, not a dictation what you meant when you said it. Maybe you meant something else, maybe you found that it reminded you of a murderer you met once at a bar, or maybe it reminds you of stuff you said prior to committing murder, or maybe you're just being silly. Maybe you just think that way. I dunno - I often find that what I intend to create and what I actually create differ quite often, even in a medium I'm fairly good at (code or food for example). It makes me doubt that I can dictate what it's really about to me - let alone what its supposed to be about to you. (honestly try it out sometime, see how many people can guess what you were thinking before you wrote that gnarly bit of code, or if they can say what you're thinking about it after it's done). There's a lot of brain science out there that suggests a lot of "why i did that" is post-hoc rationalization rather than a true "why i did that". I don't see why creation is exempt from that.

xook 4y ago

Nowhere on that website was there a "blanket statement" about all art. They said "I believe," not "It is stated fact." I also share the opinion that having no interpretation can be either or since often I have no interpretation outside of "it looks neat" for something that later I find out has deep meaning for the author that is shared by others. I don't personally see it, but that's what I think.

phailhaus 4y ago
Sure, but if you said "This art is just trying to be neat", you'd be wrong. What you're basically saying is "how I feel when I look at art is how I feel when I look at art", which is a meaningless statement. Like, sure? But we're talking about interpretations of art, not the validity of your emotions, which can certainly be correct or not depending on the artist. I think the author has conflated the two because in their art, they are explicitly inviting you to draw your own interpretations. That's not true of all artists.

ALittleLight 4y ago

The Spotify logo could be, to someone, a depiction of child labor. Suppose a child is forced to work at Spotify. That child, or people who know the child, could come to think of the Spotify logo as representing child labor.

phailhaus 4y ago
I think that's different, that's your emotional association with the logo. I'm making a distinction between your emotional reaction to a work of art (always valid), and your interpretation of it. Spotify's logo is not meant to represent child labor. It would be incorrect to say "Spotify's logo is a depiction of child labor."