How important is it that the artist intentions be perceived or understood by the audience?
Before delving into the question, some concepts must first be defined or understood. By art, what is perceived to be meant is any type of outcome created from an artist manipulating mediums to express his emotions, or to communicate a message to the audience. When applying this into an artistic context, this may take the shape of a painting, a play, a book, a song or a photograph. All of the aforementioned have an intent, and it may be superficial or deep. For instance, an artist may have the intent of exposing his opinion on racism whereas another artist may have simply wanted to portray a landscape and its beauty. Nevertheless, the intent of an artwork is not always explicitly communicated to the audience and therefore, it is debated whether it is necessary for it to be exposed.
It could be argued, from one side, that exposing an artist's intent, and therefore for it to be understood by the audience is important. If this is connected to a way of knowing, it can be argued that intent aids in reasoning the purpose of an artwork and therefore, better comprehending it. Essentially, when the intent of the artist is known, it provides the audience with background knowledge which serves as a guiding line or path to approach the artwork through. A real life example of this would be Banksy, who produced an artwork in 2004 that attacks consumerism and capitalism. Because Banksy produces random graffiti pieces around the city and does not attach an intent to the artwork, without background knowledge and understanding of American culture, it would be tough to understand the artwork. This implies that the audience is not appreciating the artwork to its optimum level, and therefore, the learning that they could have gained through that piece is gone. Another way that this can be connected to reason is through the historical context it provides. Often times, many of the artworks in its different mediums will not share direct connections to present culture and therefore a historical context will be required for better understanding. Without it, once again, reasoning through the artwork will be hindered and the audience may not fulfill the purpose the artist intentionally set out to achieve. This, for instance, could be explained through the flamenco adaptation of 'Antigone', which has connections not only to the classical piece but also to the Franco era of Spain. Without background knowledge of the Spanish Civil War or about Franco, the references scattered throughout the performance to this time period would never be understood by an audience who has not been previously made aware of the intent or the historical connections. Lastly, the important of intent can also be connected to language as a way of knowing. The intent allows the audience to move past language barriers that exist because of cultural differences. Without the intent, misunderstanding ensues, and it could even lead to an interpretation that is completely out of content. For instance, the importance of intent is reflected on the controversy surrounding To Kill A Mockingbird, a novel that already has been banned in numerous school for its constant use of the word 'niggar'. In the present day, this is obviously an offensive word due to the historical racism and oppression that it embodies. However, when the novel was written, this word did not carry that weight and therefore, without the intent, it can easily be concluded that the book is outright offensive. However, if an intent were to have been written at the start of the novel, the historical context would be understood and it could also be comprehended that the language used is from another time era. With the intent, the audience can move past the initially perceived linguistic offense, an actually absorb whatever learning the book has to offer them.
On the other hand, it could be argued that intent, in fact, hinders artistic understanding from the audience's part, and therefore, that it is not important. An intent is communicated linguistically, and therefore, once an intent is communicated to the audience, their imagination is hindered to the limited understanding that language offers. After reading an intent, the audience is locked into understanding or simply seeing one perspective of the artwork, because the intent already has prompted them to think in that particular way. Therefore, this can be analyzed through the lens of imagination as a way of knowing– once the audience is spoon-fed what the artwork is trying to communicate, their imaginative capacity in relation to that artwork is reduced, and hence, any learning they could have acquired from their own imagination is now effectively deterred. This could, to an extent, be reflected when poems are analyzed in English high-school classes. To an extent, if the students are made aware of the intent of the poem before analyzing it by themselves, then they will look at the poem only though that specific lens created by being aware of the intent. What this will lead to is that, very likely, all students will have a very similar interpretation. The consequence of this is that the essential beauty of art is lost– individual interpretation. The point of art is that every single audience member interprets the artwork through their own perspective that is shaped by their own biases, emotions and life experiences. Once the terrain of human individuality is evened out by an intent, that beauty of that variation of interpretations is lost. Lastly, if this is to be connected to emotion as a way of knowing, once an intent is put out to the audience, the initial emotional connection between the work and the audience is gone. This is because, once again, the intent somewhat teaches the audience of how to approach the artwork, and therefore, their initial emotional connections are never channeled.
In conclusion, it seems that intent does hold some importance but perhaps, it should not be extremely detailed as to avoid any hinderance in imagination and emotional connections. Intents need to be communicated to an extent so that the audience can have some context to better understand the work, but perhaps not enough as to already give a solid interpretation to the audience. The role of the intent is simply to set the audience's imagination and interpretation in the right direction, that being the purpose the artists was meaning to achieve.
It could be argued, from one side, that exposing an artist's intent, and therefore for it to be understood by the audience is important. If this is connected to a way of knowing, it can be argued that intent aids in reasoning the purpose of an artwork and therefore, better comprehending it. Essentially, when the intent of the artist is known, it provides the audience with background knowledge which serves as a guiding line or path to approach the artwork through. A real life example of this would be Banksy, who produced an artwork in 2004 that attacks consumerism and capitalism. Because Banksy produces random graffiti pieces around the city and does not attach an intent to the artwork, without background knowledge and understanding of American culture, it would be tough to understand the artwork. This implies that the audience is not appreciating the artwork to its optimum level, and therefore, the learning that they could have gained through that piece is gone. Another way that this can be connected to reason is through the historical context it provides. Often times, many of the artworks in its different mediums will not share direct connections to present culture and therefore a historical context will be required for better understanding. Without it, once again, reasoning through the artwork will be hindered and the audience may not fulfill the purpose the artist intentionally set out to achieve. This, for instance, could be explained through the flamenco adaptation of 'Antigone', which has connections not only to the classical piece but also to the Franco era of Spain. Without background knowledge of the Spanish Civil War or about Franco, the references scattered throughout the performance to this time period would never be understood by an audience who has not been previously made aware of the intent or the historical connections. Lastly, the important of intent can also be connected to language as a way of knowing. The intent allows the audience to move past language barriers that exist because of cultural differences. Without the intent, misunderstanding ensues, and it could even lead to an interpretation that is completely out of content. For instance, the importance of intent is reflected on the controversy surrounding To Kill A Mockingbird, a novel that already has been banned in numerous school for its constant use of the word 'niggar'. In the present day, this is obviously an offensive word due to the historical racism and oppression that it embodies. However, when the novel was written, this word did not carry that weight and therefore, without the intent, it can easily be concluded that the book is outright offensive. However, if an intent were to have been written at the start of the novel, the historical context would be understood and it could also be comprehended that the language used is from another time era. With the intent, the audience can move past the initially perceived linguistic offense, an actually absorb whatever learning the book has to offer them.
On the other hand, it could be argued that intent, in fact, hinders artistic understanding from the audience's part, and therefore, that it is not important. An intent is communicated linguistically, and therefore, once an intent is communicated to the audience, their imagination is hindered to the limited understanding that language offers. After reading an intent, the audience is locked into understanding or simply seeing one perspective of the artwork, because the intent already has prompted them to think in that particular way. Therefore, this can be analyzed through the lens of imagination as a way of knowing– once the audience is spoon-fed what the artwork is trying to communicate, their imaginative capacity in relation to that artwork is reduced, and hence, any learning they could have acquired from their own imagination is now effectively deterred. This could, to an extent, be reflected when poems are analyzed in English high-school classes. To an extent, if the students are made aware of the intent of the poem before analyzing it by themselves, then they will look at the poem only though that specific lens created by being aware of the intent. What this will lead to is that, very likely, all students will have a very similar interpretation. The consequence of this is that the essential beauty of art is lost– individual interpretation. The point of art is that every single audience member interprets the artwork through their own perspective that is shaped by their own biases, emotions and life experiences. Once the terrain of human individuality is evened out by an intent, that beauty of that variation of interpretations is lost. Lastly, if this is to be connected to emotion as a way of knowing, once an intent is put out to the audience, the initial emotional connection between the work and the audience is gone. This is because, once again, the intent somewhat teaches the audience of how to approach the artwork, and therefore, their initial emotional connections are never channeled.
In conclusion, it seems that intent does hold some importance but perhaps, it should not be extremely detailed as to avoid any hinderance in imagination and emotional connections. Intents need to be communicated to an extent so that the audience can have some context to better understand the work, but perhaps not enough as to already give a solid interpretation to the audience. The role of the intent is simply to set the audience's imagination and interpretation in the right direction, that being the purpose the artists was meaning to achieve.
Comments
Post a Comment