In a culture whose already classical dilemma is the hypertrophy of the intellect at the expense of energy and sensual capability, interpretation is the revenge of the intellect upon art. Even more. It is the revenge of the intellect upon the world. To interpret is to impoverish, to deplete the world - in order to set up a shadow of "meanings."
From an essay "against Interpretation"
This small part of the essay is my favourite bit, I found the quote somewhere a while back without knowing the essay... or about Susan Sontag, but it raises many questions about the communication between the artist and the viewer.
I think that basically Susan is commenting on the part of the Critic and their place, which they have created for themselves, in interpreting the work of artists for consumption by people without formal training.
I say that because even as an artist I interpret my own work as this is the dialogue between the subconscious and the conscious. Often I'll do something with realising on a conscious level what it is I'm actually doing but by allowing myself to interpret what I've done I can see what my underlying motivations are and get a better grasp of not only what I'm trying to say but also what I'm saying without realising I'm saying it.
The act of living is all about interpretation. Everything we see and do needs, to a certain degree, be evaluated and decisions made as to whether it can become something we hold on to or discarded as something we don't need or want. Some of this can become spontaneous, whereby our decision to act happens so fast as to be almost decisionless, or actively so, but a decision has been made after a lightning quick interpretation of the events.
So I'm thinking now that Susan Sontag is rallying against the industry of interpretation whereby a cadre of "experts" are working constantly to keep us in line and following their lead as to the validity, or otherwise, of specific or generic artworks.
I can agree with this, to a certain degree, but ask why should art be that which is sidelined alone for non critical evaluation. Why not house building, accountancy procedures and Rugby games?
What I can agree with and maybe see as an underlying motivation in her writing is that we, as modern humans, have come to a place where the overall fitting in to society is a somewhat precarious venture and so we have come to rely on these interpreters to guide us when we don't have enough time or energy to evaluate things for ourselves.
And the danger ,in the above, and what I find funny is that I am interpreting, is that if our reliance on the opinions of others is too great then there is an obvious dulling down and whittling away of the ability to be an individual.
What I find interesting is that I am interpreting something called "against Interpretation" and in doing so creating my own opinion about interpreting and this may very well be what Susan was attempting to have us do.
But what drew me to the quote in the first place was the line " In a culture whose already classical dilemma is the hypertrophy of the intellect at the expense of energy and sensual capability, interpretation is the revenge of the intellect upon art. "and this collection of words really does it for me. The word Hypertrophy is a doozy, hyper and trophy joined together, and it seems no small wonder that todays youth are beset with problems like ADHD and the like when essayists are having to create words like Hypertrophy to address the internal problem of societies from the word go to over emphasise the importance of rationalisation. Her underlying argument seems to be that we, as individuals, can only be individuals if we spend more time just enjoying things for what they are, as in being more right brain and creative, in an attempt to find a balance between the two temporal distinctions.
Funnily enough, the ability to have different temporal distinctions, as in left and right brain being uncommunicative, is a male thing. The male of the species "homo sapien" is physiologically at a disadvantage to the female in this department as females are born with far more interconnections between the two sides of the brain whereas males suffer from having two separate halves and are only able to make connections by following create pursuits. So it may be that Susan Sontag, who was a Lesbian, and had that famous photographer for Rolling Stone as a partner, was also arguing against the overall maleness of society; particularly the left brain rationality that is the default setting for maleness.
The trouble, though, is that it seems that the balancing of the spheres, rationality and irrationality ( funny even that its opposite isn't creative and uncreative), is about a war, of sorts, between the two distinctly different views. It seems that the creativity needs to oppose rationality to find it's feet. Then when the creative has found a strong standing then the emphasis is on melding with rationality to create a dialectic footing whereby the two spheres can become one and march forward in a balanced gestalt.
Too much creativity is not neccessarly a good thing. It needs the rationality to fend against, to give itself the power to be motivated and so, the underlying theme of Susan's discussion may be a feminine rag waved in the face of the bull of modern male society to get it to see the possible virtue of being less critical of others and more endearing of the simple fact that they are doing.
So I, in my infinite ability to question, have decided, by interpreting, that Susan Sontag wrote one thing on the surface, the rational set of words, but underneath a whole other set of motivations was coming forth and, by interpreting, I have carried forth my own ability to find balance between creativity and rationality and been, yet again, made mindful of being creative, for its own sake, to let the sub conscious speak through that conduit... and allow rationality the ability to interpret those outpourings.
No comments:
Post a Comment