T or F about interpretation of artwork???

Question

Interpretation of an artwork should directly correspond to its artistÕs intent, rejecting personal extrapolation.

Answer 1

False!! The word "interpretation" implies varied opinions of the work. No matter what the opinion, however, it MUST be validated by direct reference to the work to support any allegations. In addition, very FEW artists will ever give an interpretation to their work. Robert Frost at a speech he delivered at my college said, " Poetry is wide open to interpretation. I know people get much more out of what I write than I ever meant when I wrote it. And that is just fine."

Chow!!

Answer 2

False, the artist's actual intent should bear little influence in interpreting the work. The viewer's inferred sense of the artist's intent means much more. The work itself is what must speak to the viewer. From that dialog the viewer is free to develop a rich interpretation of surmised artistic intent. Artists themselves often don't know exactly "why" they made certain artistic choices during the creation of the art. An artist gets to create the art and to name it if they so choose. But they should refrain from speaking or writing about it since that defeats the point of creating it. The minute the artist puts the brush down upon completion of the work he ceases to be the artist and becomes just another viewer. As such his interpretation is then no more valuable in understanding or evaluating the work than any other viewer's and has no greater validity either. The art itself then acquires an independent life and is subject to constantly changing interpretation and evaluation by the sequence of viewers who encounter it.

Answer 3

F