Part of the wonder of art and creativity is that it is
possible for more meaning to reside in a piece of art than either the artist or
any single viewer of the piece might know.
Some people get skittish about statements like this, and wonder
if we haven’t walked out onto a proverbial slippery slope over which we will
slide into a pit of unrestrained subjectivity and unfettered relativity.
Everyone simply reads into art whatever they want to see without regard to the
artist’s intentions—or even what’s actually there in the artwork itself—and
before long we’re left in cultural chaos. What’s important to realize, however,
is that though such a slippery slope exists, it is not the only path that can
be chosen.
To assert that more meaning resides in good art than either
the artist or any single viewer knows is not to argue for unrestrained
subjectivity and unfettered relativity. It is to argue that the creation God
has called into existence is far more unimaginably rich in meaning than any single
person—artist or viewer—can possibly comprehend on one’s own.
Actually this turns out to be true about all of life, but we
tend to ignore that fact because we are comfortable believing we comprehend how
things work and have them under control. In those rare moments when we need
help we can call on an expert to restore order by showing us how we can become
more productive or efficient. It’s not only more fragile than we realize, it’s
delusional but that’s another topic.
In his book exploring the music of Bruce Cockburn, Brian
Walsh argues that it is not true that “anything goes” when it comes to
interpreting Cockburn’s music. “Any interpretation” Walsh insists, “needs to
have merit in relation to the work being interpreted. Interpretation needs to
be faithful to the art under discussion.” Still, he asserts, even Cockburn may
not have the final and complete understanding of his songs. Walsh explains it
this way:
Does it matter whether
the artist intended everything that can be interpreted in his work, or even
that he would see it all there if an interpreter brought it to his attention?
Yes and no. Let me put it this way: while I wouldn’t give the artist the final
word on any matter of interpretation of his own work, I am interested in
knowing what I can about what the artist might think about a piece of his own
work. So yes, the artist has some interpretive authority over his work. But not
final or exhaustive authority. Artists can say more than they mean. They can
make allusions without intending to do so. But the allusions are “really
there!” Or at least they are there if you have eyes to see.
The result of this should not be fearfulness of where
interpretation will take us. The result should be wonder at the richness of
creation and creativity, gratitude for the allusive nature of art, and a desire
to pause, look, listen, and reflect for at least a few moments in our busy
lives.
I’d love to hear what you think.
Source: Brian Walsh in Kicking at the Darkness: Bruce Cockburn & the Christian Imagination (Grand
Rapids, MI: Brazos Press; 2011) 32.
Prehistoric artwork:
Bison,
Altamira Cave, Spain
Horse, Lascaux
Cave, France
This entry was posted
at Tuesday, June 12, 2012
and is filed under
Art,
Meaning
. You can follow any responses to this entry through the
comments feed
.