“To whom does the meaning of the art of the past properly belong?”
The question at hand: “To whom does the meaning of the art of the past properly belong? To those can apply it to their own lives, or to a cultural hierarchy of relic specialists?”
I have mixed feelings about this question. On one hand, I’m aware that many people like interpret art without prior knowledge of the context. This sort of open interpretation can allow viewers to find their own meanings in art, but can also lead to widely varying conclusions. Regardless, it would be hard for me to rationalize telling someone that their interpretation of a piece of work was wrong if it created a way for them to connect with and appreciate the piece. I think its safe to say that many artists wouldn’t mind if viewers interpreted their art in various ways, as long as they get something from the piece. Moreover, artists often intentionally create art that is open ended and left for the viewer to create their own meaning from it. On the other hand, I also think that there is much value in understanding the context of a piece of art. The culture and the events within an artist’s life are crucial elements of their creations. Furthermore, I’ve found that I usually gain a greater appreciation for art when I understand the context. For example, a piece of art that seems silly or insignificant now might have been revolutionary in its time. How can we fully understand and appreciate art if we don’t have insight about the intent and social influences on the art?
So, I guess my question is: If a piece of art means one thing to you, but you later learn that its historical context might have led you to a different conclusion, does that make your original interpretation wrong? I hope not. As far as I’m concerned, both interpretations should be valued equally. The meaning of art can belong simultaneously to those who can apply it to their lives and to relic specialists.
