2006-10-07 09:28:53 · 9 answers · asked by divad 2 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Other - Arts & Humanities
Both.
Art is the artist's viewpoint, his interpretation of the subject. So he give his opinion of the subject via the artwork.
The audience (those viewing the 'art') will also have their own opinions of the subject, even though they are only observing it through the artist's eyes.
Everyone has his or her own interpretation because of his/her different experiences in life, and values and attitude.
Artists may use their media to give their opinions, to show the audience what they see, to help the viewer see the world in a different, new, way.
I believe that it would be almost impossible to create, and view a piece of art in a totally objective manner. Even if you did try to it may not happen, as your own subconscious internal dialogue would render the effort useless! Of course, you wouldn't 'know' that you're not objective....you would just be.
So I think that there's no 'better' way. Art is the interpretation of the artist, AND it is the interpretation of the viewer!!
2006-10-07 10:02:55 · answer #1 · answered by vdrt 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In a sense the ultimate interpretation is probably in the mind of the artist but I like to think art is meant to be shared. Since each of us brings different experiences to what we are seeing I think ever interpretation can be the "real" or right one.
2006-10-07 09:43:30 · answer #2 · answered by MUD 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Art is created by the artist to be viewed in a certain way, but it is always open to interpretation. Even when there is a blurb describing the artists intentions and motivations, a viewer will draw on there own life experiences and relate them to the subject in question.
2006-10-07 09:36:32 · answer #3 · answered by scal 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is better be felt than interpreted, it is not necessary an interpretation of the artist.
2006-10-07 09:44:38 · answer #4 · answered by aahamed24 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
by interpreting the art, you're interpreting the artist.
2006-10-07 11:18:34 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I FEEL ART SHOULD BE AN INTERPERTATION OF THE ARTIST , WHICH IN RETURN WILL ALLOW THE BUYER TO INTERPRETE ITS OWN FEELINGS AND THOUGHTS BEHIND THE PORTRAIT, BESIDES A PICTURE IS WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS
2006-10-07 09:33:23 · answer #6 · answered by lonely girl 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
art shouldn't be interpretated...it should always be original. no one can draw/perform the art as good as the person who invented it
2006-10-07 09:38:13 · answer #7 · answered by .::country gurl in a 4X4::. 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Art is in the eye of the beholder.
2006-10-07 09:35:54 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
In my opinion, great art does not provide answers; it asks new questions.
2006-10-07 09:33:03 · answer #9 · answered by delighteddave 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋