Im no connoisseur of art, but your animations never cease to amaze. Most RUclips animators and content creators have a fixed style they call their own. They also focus on a particular genre, in which they specialize in. However Ted-Ed is different. The animation varies wildly, and i believe it's fitting for the motto of the channel.
Art is personal to every human individual. Your life and experiences may change your perspective on art. Art is something that makes us human, and I truly believe that the intention of creating lives within every human being.
Why is it that people can exactly say what is a good book, a bad one, one with bad grammar, poor story, etc.. but when it comes to painting, its almost a taboo to say some painting is really bad, because it will have different interpretations, etc.. Art being personal is just an idea
@@DinoIAmNoHoster i don't think it's bad but I also think that different people have different tastes. For example I never got into Fifty Shades or Twilight but some people I know love them. (The books and/or the movies). I am a full blown Potterhead and love Hunger Games books and movies on both counts but some people can't stand them. We each have our reasons for liking them or not liking them same with music, painting, art. I do think most art is subjective. Sometimes you might find something where 98% of the people think it is awful or great but as a rule it's much more varied than that. HP and HG that I love and both are very popular in both book and movie genres also both have detractors from people who's opinion I respect. Twilight and 50 shades struck a cord with many of my friends some of them don't like to read but it gave them a reason to pick up a book. HP and HG also got many young people and even adults to pick up a book and even in some cases start to like reading in general especially if they were young when they picked it up.
@@DinoIAmNoHoster Can people say what a good book is? Communication happens between the sender and the receiver. How it is perceived depends a lot on the horizon of the person reading it. Paintings have more dimensions, as they use several methods of communication (words can do that too, but it rarely happens in longer texts as it is difficult to maintain the coherence necessary for a longer work, but poems can use words and letters in many different ways), so it gets even more difficult to read them.
art is personal to every human individual & so does perspective your life and experiences may change your perspective everything is art, but not everything makes us human intention is to satisfy our desires, creating is a function in some human being
i know you want to understand reality; i know you want to convey a poetic message however you need to accept reality is not your way of pretty, because you're fabricating pretty stories your understanding reality will stop if you're confined style & ideals; change your perspective of art
In my opinion art has two main characteristics which make it so valuable for humanity: - It's ability to record history and express it , it's ability to record feelings and thinking patterns of past and communicating them to us in the present. - It's capacity to trigger inspiration in human beings in different ways. Since we are all unqiue to some point so our preception of art as well. This brings priceless value to it because world needs inspiration to move forward and progress. So based on these two, I would say that it's helpful to know the meaning of the artist to start your reasoning process about some piece. However the abstract and unique understanding is what eventually trigger the emotions and lead to creative and possibly innovative ideas which move us forward. So I would say I mostly agree with that art has no borders and can be percieved anyhow by anyone unless they sincerely feel what they state they do.
My quick answer before watching the video: Every individual observer decides what art means to them... (Edit:) ...After watching the video I maintain my opinion. All interpretations are valid regardless of artist intent. Is it wrong for me to stand on a chair or sit cross-legged just because the chair manufacturer only intended it as a seat? If I use the chair as a doorstop am I invalidating it? ...lol Creativity inspires creativity. That's the beauty of expression: it leads to more and more novelty (i.e. memes about memes lol). It doesn't matter in what direction an artwork inspires, in my opinion. All that matters is that it inspired. It serves a purpose even if that's unintended.
One of the biggest influences of my life was when I was yet a kid, like 13-14 or so, when I stumbled across the essay by Roland Barthes "The Death of The Author". I honestly believe one should separate author's identity and supposed intention behind the work from the work itself as framing imposes a limit of interpretation. We should be able to interpret art, whether it's picture, sculpture or a text, however we want and author's interpretation is just one of very many possible.
That is what Vince Gilligan said about Breaking Bad: that his thoughts on Walter White's intentions and actions were one of many and not necessarily the "correct" ones, and that he loved that viewers had their own interpretations of the unfoldings. Loved that.
I believe I am a little bit of both, I like the idea that there are a lot of interpretations and perspectives of everyone, but I think it is important as well if we hear the artist perspective and put it into consideration.
All forms of art (from paintings, sculptures, cinemas, comics, to abstracts) have artists' intentions/motives/meanings/inspirations. The problem is not every artist dictates/mentions/stipulates/discusses her/his intents either directly or otherwise. Another possible way to extract meanings or motives behind the art work(s) is the context of the times (art historians actually do so in case artists left almost nothing in writing or notes whatsoever). Anyways, art is in the eye of the beholder!
I love sharing my interpretations with my friends and hear theirs, so i'm definetly don't think that a painting or an art object can have only one and only interpretation. It would be so boring and i don't think that art wants to be that.
art has different interpretations from different interpreters, but when you find analogies between those interpretations that's what makes an art a great one.
The artist's intent is always the final verdict. Art is a form of communication and a listener cannot decide what the speaker is trying to tell them. However ambiguity can be the intent; the speaker might not always be stating something but sometimes asking questions, and different answers within defined proportions might be what the artist intended. This is the route followed by the greatest of artists, whose works are always somewhat open to interpretation. The intent can't be ambiguous, but ambiguity can be the intent.
I believe the artist's (painter, author, musician, etc.) intention is important due to the fact that the insights gained from some works of art have lead to action being taken. Sometimes positive, and sometimes negative, but regardless, the negative can be mitigated if the artist's intentions are known (for most works of art). I also personally hated having to interpret what a dead author meant by his/her book and being judged on my interpretation. However, I believe you should be able to enjoy the artist's work before knowing their intent, sit on it a while to see what your subconscious gains from these insights and once solidified, learn of the artist's intent. This allows you to get personal insight into yourself, learning more about yourself, and then still potentially absorbing the intent the artist sought to portray.
This works with both art and poetry. Authorial intent is most important, but you can connect a work to things in your own life to give it a meaning in your personal context. You cannot, however, say definitively what the author was saying with their text. For example: would you go up to a famous author or artist and tell them exactly what their work means, even calling them wrong if they argue? But at the same time, a lot of what goes into art/literature is subconscious or unintentional. I find this a lot editing people's poems and short stories. Elements they didn't expect just end up there and can alter the interpretation.
A lot of people would argue or insist that their meaning is just as important as the artists. To be honest there aren't many artists that are willing to be frank and say "This is what it is, your opinion comes second". Some fans would be highly offended. What's of most importance to them is what they felt or learned, not the art or the artist. In their eyes those things are second. They believe they have the final say because that's supposedly the definition of art in a nutshell. So, yeah they'd argue.
I think the order of importance is like this : - what the artist wanted to do (if it's something ambitious) - how he did it (is it good or bad ?) - how well we interpreted it (are we close to what the artist wanted us to see ?) - finally, are we impressed ? (If we liked the object)
🎯 Key points for quick navigation: 00:13 *🎨 Interpretation Differences: Art can evoke different interpretations, such as love or war, based on personal perception.* 00:41 *🖌️ Artist's Intentions: Knowing an artist's original intentions can influence how people enjoy and interpret their art.* 01:11 *🤔 Intentional Fallacy: Wimsatt and Beardsley argued that an artist's intention shouldn't determine a work's interpretation.* 01:39 *🍮 Art as Dessert: The enjoyment of art should be independent of the creator's intentions, similar to enjoying a dessert.* 02:09 *🌠 Interpretation Variety: A single artwork can support multiple interpretations, all equally valid.* 02:36 *📜 Knapp and Michaels' View: They believed the artist's intended meaning is the only valid interpretation.* 03:04 *🤝 Intentional Middle Ground: Noel Carroll argued for intention as a part of the art interpretation process, akin to dialogue comprehension.* 04:02 *🕸️ Complex Interpretation: Artistic interpretation is intricate and unlikely to have a single definitive answer.* Made with HARPA AI
Well every artist making an art has their own reasons for making it and their reasons bring life into those paintings some people might study the painting by just one look and explain it but the artist might have spent years cultivating his artwork for people to understand the true meaning behind their creativity.. like a child's parents know them the best in the same way the artist knows their painting the best and that's the true reason that it is living forever in an art museum!! I like every creative topic Ted Ed chooses to explain!! Great 👍
I think what the artist is trying to convey is more important than anyone's opinion of the art. The draw of the art scene for me, is trying to figure the meaning out or not thinking too deep into it. Just enjoying the piece for what it is . I prefer performance art myself whereas I feel there is more room for interpretation.
That is why last year I saw a painting sold for USD 2.5 million which was nothing but a white canvas with a single red line running diagonally across the whole canvas. I bet the creator of the painting must be laughing dead after the auction. But hey that is what art is now a days. Beauty really lies in the eye of the beholder.
I personally think the interpretation of art is different from person to person which is also kinda what makes it special And if you think about it a lot of art other than visual also has differences in interpretation like music or a film
I agree that intentions of the original artist are important as there is one piece of information that it likely to be lost otherwise. Suppose there are 10 paintings which the artist uses to weave a coherent idea. Each of them *must* be interpreted in a fashion conceived by the artist to bring about the intended result. However, if different interpretations are to be taken into account after independently analyzing each painting, it is next to impossible that one might accidentally stumble upon a coherent enough idea rivalling that of the artist. As such, I believe that instead of asking the question of "who", we should instead be focusing on experiential value, arguable parameters, information etc. That way, these aspects would merely be a means to the result.
Well, I'm kind of on a middle ground, but I think it in musical terms, because most of the time I like to know that there is a deeper meaning behind what I'm listening too. I take it into consideration, but it also helps knowing most musical artists don't seem to mind if you have a different interpretation of their songs. And they are self aware of the fact that it can/will be interpreted in many ways.
Why you need an interpretation? What's the use? What are you actually here for? What's the purpose of yours looking at the painting? You wanna know what the artist was thinking? Go for his interpretation. You wanna enjoy the painting? Sit back and relax, either just mindlessly watching it or thinking about what could mean what. Or if you want to get inspired, if you are here for that? Do that.
We feel moments of flight like the sea foam and the splash of stars upon a vast ocean of space. A work of art evokes feelings in us to express what the artist perhaps also felt. Meaning comes later as a story of what we felt in the moment.
MY DEFINITIVE ANSWER: The intention of the artist is relevant to the extent that 1) we can access that knowledge (abt their intention) 2) the artist is very intentional and deliberate to the point of being deeply philosophical in their work. But, the case can be made that there might be subconscious elements that are found in a piece of art that even the artist was not consciously trying to imbue their artwork with. I like how we are able to critique and view the same works of art today that multiple generations before us each had their own view of. I'm inclined to think that we are more privileged than them because 1) they were - in general - less open to various interpretations, since there were periods before where you had to fit in established schools of thought and there wasn't that climate of truly unfettered criticism of art and the production of art. We live in a more relaxed and open society than ever before. 2) we have the advantage of being the last ones to have our say on these works, i.e. the benefit of surveying all the different interpretations of the past, and then having our own more-informed interpretation.
If the artist wants to express their intention, then it is their responsibility to make it clear in the text or art itself. If they cannot do this, then maybe they're not saying what they think they're saying. I say this as someone with over 100 credit hours in literature studies.
Artists today have almost no authority of what their intentions are. Intentions are much more controlled by audiences and marketing. What we mostly gather in meaning from art can only be displayed by those who use it for power and control. Deconstruction, modern literary criticism, and that of advertising and marketing create the meaning for artists thus much of what can be said or heard about art is mostly on aesthetics.
For me art is something that artist is trying to catch that uncatchable Moment, the present which is here forever but still different. It is something that is in human subconciousness from the beggining. Even with the music, whole orchestra could be just one single moment fractalized into infinity orders of harmony. Every artist is trying to tell us : dont wait for tommorow but live now in present, it will be here forever
If art is expression then the artist's intention is paramount to the the piece's value as an artistic expression. Whether or not you see beauty in a misinterpretation doesn't change that- if you see something different than the artist intended then the artist has failed to express his or herself.
I´m a hobby painter. My painting has a meaning to me & i enjoy doing it for me. That means : At the time, i am not cocern with the other people oppinions , if they like it or not, if i make good money by selling it or not. perhaps later but not as i´ m by painting. Once it´s done, i´d like to share & discuss my ideas with others, but for simplicity let´s say : my job is done. What the others think about it, its their own evaluation, which are valuable to me , but not realy or truly my own.
We all have different backgrounds and therefore interpret things differently. At my university, they say that your analysis is acceptable as long as you have evidence. The author/artist will leave clues, but we have also been told that "the author is dead", which is a good way of looking at it. We cannot discuss the artist's intention, only the intention of that specific artwork/text. It can still mean something else to you on a personal level, but when you have all the tools to analyze it, you will probably see something else than if you let your heart and personal experiences be in charge.
Our interpretation is what really matters to us, author's attention doesn't matter to our opinion, I think good art is when we are the much closest to what the artist wanted to do
I think both intention and interpretation are important; as intention could create a new perspective on someone's interpretation and change it in a good way. On the other hand, if I were an artist, I'd make my intentions clear as day so that there is no room for interpretation. That probably isn't possible, as I will interpret a song to represent something that was not originally intended for example, but still.
I prefer the middle ground of Noel Carol (may have mispelled there). A creator's intention is important, regardless of the medium, yet if the audience can find a deeper meaning that is important to them or can use it as a starting point for a larger conversation is also valid. However, I don't believe that you should automatically assume that the creator/s of a work mean for it to have a political meaning unless they specifically say so. Sometimes a story is just a story.
As an artist myself, albeit amateur, I simply hope people like it and am interested in hearing what they THINK the meaning is. I might even wish that WAS what I intended if it's a great suggestion. Lol
0:00 Only you. If youre the artist and you wish to explain how you interpret your own piece then do so. If not, then depending on how you present your work, you shouldn't be upset if people assume things that otherwise aren't the case in your view are entirely your fault. However, people interpreting things for their own view sometimes helps them see things no one else can explain to them. My personal opinion ~ :I loved the video
I definitely think that the artists crafts for the audience. However, I would also say that art can be transformational for the viewer thereby bringing the audience which is slightly out of alignment with the language the artist is speaking into alignment with the artist's message. This I think is more valuable as it is stretching an individual's mind to intake an alternative viewpoint. Preaching to the choir is okay but transformation is more profound.
I think it'd be cool if the artists' intentions and my interpretation were the same. After all we always liked those who understand us and I think that's what we want when we see someone's artwork.
I thought you're going to try to explain what is and what isn't art. What make art 'art'. But this was great too. Also,the animation style is so beautiful 🧡
I'm definitely more in line with the first view, but I don't agree at all that "the artist's interpretation of their own work [is] just one among many equally acceptable possibilities". It's like saying that if I were to say something, regardless of what I was actually trying to say, the words you think I said would be an interpretation as valid as what I was in fact thinking (and that that would also be an interpretation). Though you can try to interpret my words and get meaning out of them, I can't be "interpreting" my own phrases, just as an artist doesn't "interpret" their own work; they actually govern the intent behind those actions. The artist's thoughts about the art *are* what it is supposed to convey, but the art _means_ what people have taken from it. To give a more specific example, imagine we're a rock concert and I say "You look rad today", but you hear me saying "You look bad today"; I actually meant to give you a compliment, and that is a fact - to say that I wanted to insult you would simply be wrong -, but you might have felt bad because of that, and that's perfectly valid. What I meant to say is irrelevant in terms of what you're feeling, but I still tried to say something. I hope you guys get what I mean.
In the mid-20th century,philosopher. W.K. Wimsatt and Monroe C. Beardsley published The Intentional Fallacy. In it, they counter the contemporary assumption that the original creator's intention for a work was equal to the meaning and merit of the work. This raised serious questions in the critical realm about intention
If I painted something and I had my own intention; my own message to portray then that is what I want other people to know. Yes, I would like to hear what they think it is but I don't want them to be spreading around their beliefs as 'gospel truth' or arguing over their interpretations of the piece. I WANT MY INTENTION TO BE KNOWN BECAUSE THAT'S WHY I PAINTED IT :) Edit: Gorgeous animation btw. Also, at 2:14 is that pollutant Trump?
At some point, a distinction must arise between understanding the artist and understanding the art. Looking at intention is really both, and it's a mistake to think that a good artist must be a good communicator of intent. It's not that the artist's interpretation is just one of many, it's whether they are any good at communicating that intent. In general, if it takes an art expert to determine intent, you're dealing with a bad communicator unless the intended audience is restricted to art experts, which is increasingly the case.
When looking at a painting on a wall, it needs to have 5 basic building blocks. These are: Line Shape and form Space Color Texture How well the artist satisfies these 5 requirements determines the quality of the work. Outside of this, it is up to the viewer to appreciate the artist's conception. Yes, it can help to understand the life of the artist, the era in which the artist grew up in, and the political/social events of the time. Personally, a fine piece of art needs to be understood through the mind of the artist. For example, while Vincent VanGogh's works are incredible, they become even MORE incredible once you know the story of his life. Finally, much of today's modern art is not art: it is merely a social commentary, much like reading the op-ed of a newspaper.
In my opinion, the author's interpretation is THE interpretation, and the one that gives the piece meaning, because preceded it's creation, and not the other way around; however, any individual can have a singular interpretation of the piece of art, but this would be in a lower category than the author's.
Ok suppose there was a certain incident that happened in your life of deep emotional significance, and a piece of art represents, captures or reminds you of that incident. Then, what if it means more to you than what it meant to maybe even the artist? Will you rob somebody the chance to enjoy this art on a whole new different level with such a sweeping, mechanical statement? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, although the artist's intention can offer interesting insight. It's highly situational and relative, so we can't generalize.
@Mechanical Engineer Nejc Klemen Hey, while you make a lot of sense, why compare in the first place? Art, at the end of the day, is for one to enjoy right, so I think this debate isn't even like useful. I can choose to interpret art in any way I can, and nobody can stop me (unless the big brother sends his thought police :) Plus, I think artists will be honoured at different interpretations which they never thought of themselves.
As an artist myself🎭🖼🎨, the intention of my work vs. the way it's interpreted is something that often comes to mind. I'm a "middle ground" person myself.
I'd say both are true. The piece of art is a message the artist is trying to communicate, so clearly their intention is important. However if it is unclear what they are trying to say then they are doing a bad job of communicating their message. A good chef makes a dessert that matches his intentions, likewise a good artist makes his piece of art to match his intentions. If audiences cannot agree on some basic understanding of the painting then the artist has done a bad job of communicating his idea. Now there ks the complication of ambiguity, in the case where the artist specifically wants his piece to be hard to interpret. In this case the artist wants to spark the debate itself and cause conversation by making his intentions ambiguous, yet his intentions are still there and the conversation is generated by the audience trying to figure out what his intentions were.
After that, it's up to the viewing audience to decide what it means to them ( art ) and how well it conveys whatever they think is the message. Great Valuable Video
I think art is only art if it has meaning to someone. That is, if you can describe it in more than one way, I think it's art. If the only way to describe something meaningfully is "oil paint on canvas" then I don't think that's art, but if you can take the image you see and convert it into a concept in your brain that evokes some feeling or idea beyond what you visually see, I think that's art. It doesn't have to be an image though, it could be an incoherent mess, but if that mess says something to you- maybe it looks violent, or aggressive or maybe it says something about chaos or futility, it's still art. I guess [visual] art then is a manipulation/activation of the image-recognition centers of our brains.
My answer: Intention only matters in regards to dismissing counter-interpretations of the art. Complementary or neutral interpretations to the artist's interpretations only act to heighten the depth of the art. It gives us new ways of thinking about the meaning of the art and even the art's intent. But when an person comes to an interpretation that is opposite of the creator's intent then no only does this create chaos, it reduces meaning. Art is subject to law of diminishing returns, each additional valid interpretation adds meaning to the art, but less meaning than the prior valid interpretation. When a counter-interpretation is considered valid, you have reached the other side of the apex meaning and it all downhill from there.
The artist's intentions are equally important as the viewer's intentions, as long as neither of them assumes that their idea of the artwork's meaning is the only justifiable one. It's worth listening to opinions you don't understand or cannot relate to, so why would we even need a definitive answer for such a complex discussion?
Surely these philosophers have a reason to have these positions, but for me, I prefer the position in which you can choose to enjoy art either as was intentioned, that is if you were interested in empathizing with the artist or trying to understand him/her or his period...etc; or to enjoy it in the way that it affects you and to observe what it provokes in you or in your own interpretation. I don't see why they have to be mutually exclusive.
I believe the whole meaning of art lies in the way each of us percieve it..and our perceptions naturally differ....an artist's intentions may or may not be different from ours but the art holds meaning from what we take from it
I'm firmly in the camp that art stands on its own. Understanding the artist's intentions *may* help an observer come to understand or appreciate a piece of art, but they don't define its meaning. Meaning and even beauty are objective concepts, in my opinion.
"The Artist does." - The Artist But with that being said, the artist can KNOW what it means, but the wonderful thing about art is its objective subjectivity. As an artist I love other peoples interpretations of my creations.
In my opinion, an art piece (painting/poem/photograph/movie) should be interpreted by everyone according to their own, while also getting to know the intention of the artist. I compare this to a scientific invention like the wheel, which would have been first invented to craft pottery (most probably), but later usage of the wheel for transportation only adds to the importance of the wheel. New interpretations should not be shunned, but the original idea should not be forgotten. Sometimes, we see that art can be re-interpreted to suit certain twisted ideologies, which are often exact opposite of what the artist intended. Hence the artist's view must be kept in mind while exploring other points of view.
Great artwork reference!... OK coming to the debate, the artist's intention should come out of his 'choice' not by some 'chance' . Whatever comes out of his choice speaks his expertise and that from chance comes out of just luck.
As an artist myself who is struggling to create a webcomic, I’d label my own personal opinions to be infinitely more important than the opinions of my audience, especially assuming that some of the people in the audience are mainly internet trolls.
Art is both subjective and objective. When the artist create an artwork it isn't 'his' anymore, it is for everyone. Artists brings the art to the visible world
I believe an artist is a vessel for expressing human experience. The interpretation of their work is as individual as each humans life. Each person interprets life and art based on their own individual experiences.
ME (I personally see it as the subjectivity based on facts making the beauty of it because it becomes interpersonal and special for different people, and it's individual every time)
I go with a middle ground. Look at found art as an example. It was not created with any artistic intention, but rather became art through the placement of it into a context where it receives a new interpretation. The interpretation is crucial to its artistic value, but the interpretation does not have to originate with the creator. It can come from anyone. What is important is that it comes to have an artistic meaning to you, whether you created that meaning, it was suggested by the artist, or a fan theorized about it and that intrigued you. My favorite example is Robert Frost's "Stopping by the Woods." Most critics will tell you it is about the long path toward death. Frost himself took it rather literally though, as a simple poem about a walk in the woods. But a popular theory that it is about Santa Claus adds a great deal of enjoyment as a secondary meaning. If any of those have meaning to you, then they have meaning and it is what the people means, even if it is not what was meant by the poem. This example is often used when this topic is discussed academically.
The artists plans most definitely effect its meaning, because that's the energy the artist is sending out into the world. That of course doesn't mean the work isn't open to a different interpretation by the viewer.
Crazy that I had this dilemma in my mind for years and never thought it might have been a philosophical debate. If you're interested in my opinion, I believe the intention of the artist is irrelevant as well. That's because I find nature just as beautiful and meaningful as art, and that interpretation is in my head alone, since no particular artist was responsible for nature. That means what someone thinks about the art is purely subject in my opinion.
I always thought of this. I thought the same for music. Whenever i listen to a song, i let it sink in and imagine the view and create my own scenery and storyline. Then when i see the original music video and artists involved, i get very sad and unmotivated when i come to know what the song really is about and that my favorite 5 seconds of that melody was just a filler.
I believe it's both. Meaning is malleable. The observation of truth And how you interpret that truth are two separate things. I could say red for love and my friend could say red for war but in general their both passionate... And that passion is neutral, whether we as a viewer dictate that it's for love or for war is debatable but both can agree in the end of the day that it's passionate in general.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
*TED-Ed's animations are a true **_work of art!_*
i scrolled down to comment section to see if there's this comment ;)
But who are you to decide that? ;)
in this video you will find the answer: Definitons of art / film art assignment ruclips.net/video/ZtpaVljGhAc/видео.html
Or not!
that what art is! also pls dont r/woosh me
Im no connoisseur of art, but your animations never cease to amaze.
Most RUclips animators and content creators have a fixed style they call their own. They also focus on a particular genre, in which they specialize in. However Ted-Ed is different. The animation varies wildly, and i believe it's fitting for the motto of the channel.
I'm pretty sure Ted-Ed intentionally contracts a wide variety of different animation studios / artists to do their videos.
Not sure the word "connesuir" exists. Maybe you want to say "connoisseur"?
Connosorry
Connoisseur*
*Corns-aren't-sour
As someone who draws stuff, I like it when people tell me about their interpretations, this inspires me to create better drawings.
Can I see your work?
Art is personal to every human individual. Your life and experiences may change your perspective on art. Art is something that makes us human, and I truly believe that the intention of creating lives within every human being.
Why is it that people can exactly say what is a good book, a bad one, one with bad grammar, poor story, etc.. but when it comes to painting, its almost a taboo to say some painting is really bad, because it will have different interpretations, etc.. Art being personal is just an idea
@@DinoIAmNoHoster i don't think it's bad but I also think that different people have different tastes. For example I never got into Fifty Shades or Twilight but some people I know love them. (The books and/or the movies). I am a full blown Potterhead and love Hunger Games books and movies on both counts but some people can't stand them. We each have our reasons for liking them or not liking them same with music, painting, art. I do think most art is subjective. Sometimes you might find something where 98% of the people think it is awful or great but as a rule it's much more varied than that. HP and HG that I love and both are very popular in both book and movie genres also both have detractors from people who's opinion I respect. Twilight and 50 shades struck a cord with many of my friends some of them don't like to read but it gave them a reason to pick up a book. HP and HG also got many young people and even adults to pick up a book and even in some cases start to like reading in general especially if they were young when they picked it up.
@@DinoIAmNoHoster Can people say what a good book is? Communication happens between the sender and the receiver. How it is perceived depends a lot on the horizon of the person reading it. Paintings have more dimensions, as they use several methods of communication (words can do that too, but it rarely happens in longer texts as it is difficult to maintain the coherence necessary for a longer work, but poems can use words and letters in many different ways), so it gets even more difficult to read them.
art is personal to every human individual & so does perspective
your life and experiences may change your perspective
everything is art, but not everything makes us human
intention is to satisfy our desires, creating is a function in some human being
i know you want to understand reality; i know you want to convey a poetic message
however you need to accept reality is not your way of pretty, because you're fabricating pretty stories
your understanding reality will stop if you're confined style & ideals; change your perspective
of art
Trust Ted Ed to make interest in a topic that I never thought of.
Goy George not really.
Are you Egyptian
in this video you will find the answer: Definitons of art / film art assignment ruclips.net/video/ZtpaVljGhAc/видео.html
_You can't rush art._
*~ Geri (Toy Story 2, 1999)*
and you cant judge it.
@@spamonfire1472 true but each person has their own judgement.
I always memorized it by heart
I unironically love this
Stunning animation
Like what's the video discussing, I find the animation below average. Beauty is subjective
It's not good animation...
@Hda Destroyers he is joking.
But who decides who decides what art means? 🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔
The watchers
v(^_^)v
I thought I'd find out who judges if those expensive paint splashes(the million and billiokind)were art or just splashes.
But whi decides, who decides, who decides what aet means
Khagesh Bansal
Wut ?
In my opinion art has two main characteristics which make it so valuable for humanity:
- It's ability to record history and express it , it's ability to record feelings and thinking patterns of past and communicating them to us in the present.
- It's capacity to trigger inspiration in human beings in different ways. Since we are all unqiue to some point so our preception of art as well. This brings priceless value to it because world needs inspiration to move forward and progress.
So based on these two, I would say that it's helpful to know the meaning of the artist to start your reasoning process about some piece. However the abstract and unique understanding is what eventually trigger the emotions and lead to creative and possibly innovative ideas which move us forward.
So I would say I mostly agree with that art has no borders and can be percieved anyhow by anyone unless they sincerely feel what they state they do.
"Do wee need a creator to be able to appreciate the creations?" Wow sounds like a profound theosophical question.
Beauty lies in the eyes of beholder. (Conditions apply)
Beauty lies in stuffs that we took a selfie with.
great idea
Thought the same as I saw the first few seconds of the video
My quick answer before watching the video:
Every individual observer decides what art means to them...
(Edit:) ...After watching the video I maintain my opinion. All interpretations are valid regardless of artist intent.
Is it wrong for me to stand on a chair or sit cross-legged just because the chair manufacturer only intended it as a seat?
If I use the chair as a doorstop am I invalidating it? ...lol
Creativity inspires creativity. That's the beauty of expression: it leads to more and more novelty (i.e. memes about memes lol). It doesn't matter in what direction an artwork inspires, in my opinion. All that matters is that it inspired. It serves a purpose even if that's unintended.
in this video you will find the answer: Definitons of art / film art assignment ruclips.net/video/ZtpaVljGhAc/видео.html
That's a well written response, I agree with you
I came here for answers dammit, all i'm left with is more questions. love it.
HAHAHAHA same, i need this for school
i think the point is to say that art is very subjective, different people different mind different interpretation.
One of the biggest influences of my life was when I was yet a kid, like 13-14 or so, when I stumbled across the essay by Roland Barthes "The Death of The Author". I honestly believe one should separate author's identity and supposed intention behind the work from the work itself as framing imposes a limit of interpretation. We should be able to interpret art, whether it's picture, sculpture or a text, however we want and author's interpretation is just one of very many possible.
That is what Vince Gilligan said about Breaking Bad: that his thoughts on Walter White's intentions and actions were one of many and not necessarily the "correct" ones, and that he loved that viewers had their own interpretations of the unfoldings. Loved that.
I believe I am a little bit of both, I like the idea that there are a lot of interpretations and perspectives of everyone, but I think it is important as well if we hear the artist perspective and put it into consideration.
All forms of art (from paintings, sculptures, cinemas, comics, to abstracts) have artists' intentions/motives/meanings/inspirations. The problem is not every artist dictates/mentions/stipulates/discusses her/his intents either directly or otherwise. Another possible way to extract meanings or motives behind the art work(s) is the context of the times (art historians actually do so in case artists left almost nothing in writing or notes whatsoever). Anyways, art is in the eye of the beholder!
The Chef throwing the dessert at the face of the person caught me so off guard I laughed for like 10 minutes 🤣🤣🤣
I love sharing my interpretations with my friends and hear theirs, so i'm definetly don't think that a painting or an art object can have only one and only interpretation. It would be so boring and i don't think that art wants to be that.
That's not their interpretation. they's just guesses to the artists intentions
art has different interpretations from different interpreters, but when you find analogies between those interpretations that's what makes an art a great one.
The artist's intent is always the final verdict. Art is a form of communication and a listener cannot decide what the speaker is trying to tell them. However ambiguity can be the intent; the speaker might not always be stating something but sometimes asking questions, and different answers within defined proportions might be what the artist intended. This is the route followed by the greatest of artists, whose works are always somewhat open to interpretation. The intent can't be ambiguous, but ambiguity can be the intent.
this comment is so beautiful ohmygod
I believe the artist's (painter, author, musician, etc.) intention is important due to the fact that the insights gained from some works of art have lead to action being taken. Sometimes positive, and sometimes negative, but regardless, the negative can be mitigated if the artist's intentions are known (for most works of art). I also personally hated having to interpret what a dead author meant by his/her book and being judged on my interpretation.
However, I believe you should be able to enjoy the artist's work before knowing their intent, sit on it a while to see what your subconscious gains from these insights and once solidified, learn of the artist's intent. This allows you to get personal insight into yourself, learning more about yourself, and then still potentially absorbing the intent the artist sought to portray.
Exactly...the only comment which covers both of the important points
Well said
This works with both art and poetry. Authorial intent is most important, but you can connect a work to things in your own life to give it a meaning in your personal context. You cannot, however, say definitively what the author was saying with their text. For example: would you go up to a famous author or artist and tell them exactly what their work means, even calling them wrong if they argue?
But at the same time, a lot of what goes into art/literature is subconscious or unintentional. I find this a lot editing people's poems and short stories. Elements they didn't expect just end up there and can alter the interpretation.
A lot of people would argue or insist that their meaning is just as important as the artists. To be honest there aren't many artists that are willing to be frank and say "This is what it is, your opinion comes second". Some fans would be highly offended. What's of most importance to them is what they felt or learned, not the art or the artist. In their eyes those things are second. They believe they have the final say because that's supposedly the definition of art in a nutshell. So, yeah they'd argue.
Can we all just take a moments to appreciate this beautiful piece of art from TED Ed?
_Arts meaning is at the individuals interpretation._
I love the narrator's voice, gives such 'cool teacher who has your back' vibes
I think the order of importance is like this :
- what the artist wanted to do (if it's something ambitious)
- how he did it (is it good or bad ?)
- how well we interpreted it (are we close to what the artist wanted us to see ?)
- finally, are we impressed ? (If we liked the object)
in this video you might find some answer: Definitons of art / film art assignment ruclips.net/video/ZtpaVljGhAc/видео.html
🎯 Key points for quick navigation:
00:13 *🎨 Interpretation Differences: Art can evoke different interpretations, such as love or war, based on personal perception.*
00:41 *🖌️ Artist's Intentions: Knowing an artist's original intentions can influence how people enjoy and interpret their art.*
01:11 *🤔 Intentional Fallacy: Wimsatt and Beardsley argued that an artist's intention shouldn't determine a work's interpretation.*
01:39 *🍮 Art as Dessert: The enjoyment of art should be independent of the creator's intentions, similar to enjoying a dessert.*
02:09 *🌠 Interpretation Variety: A single artwork can support multiple interpretations, all equally valid.*
02:36 *📜 Knapp and Michaels' View: They believed the artist's intended meaning is the only valid interpretation.*
03:04 *🤝 Intentional Middle Ground: Noel Carroll argued for intention as a part of the art interpretation process, akin to dialogue comprehension.*
04:02 *🕸️ Complex Interpretation: Artistic interpretation is intricate and unlikely to have a single definitive answer.*
Made with HARPA AI
0:17 this reaction catches my eye..
Animation ✨✨
Well every artist making an art has their own reasons for making it and their reasons bring life into those paintings some people might study the painting by just one look and explain it but the artist might have spent years cultivating his artwork for people to understand the true meaning behind their creativity.. like a child's parents know them the best in the same way the artist knows their painting the best and that's the true reason that it is living forever in an art museum!! I like every creative topic Ted Ed chooses to explain!! Great 👍
What an awesome talk! Art is such an awesome topic.
2:14 THE SHADE!!!!! I CAN'T!!!
I think what the artist is trying to convey is more important than anyone's opinion of the art. The draw of the art scene for me, is trying to figure the meaning out or not thinking too deep into it. Just enjoying the piece for what it is . I prefer performance art myself whereas I feel there is more room for interpretation.
That is why last year I saw a painting sold for USD 2.5 million which was nothing but a white canvas with a single red line running diagonally across the whole canvas.
I bet the creator of the painting must be laughing dead after the auction.
But hey that is what art is now a days.
Beauty really lies in the eye of the beholder.
in this video you will find the answer: Definitons of art / film art assignment ruclips.net/video/ZtpaVljGhAc/видео.html
I personally think the interpretation of art is different from person to person which is also kinda what makes it special
And if you think about it a lot of art other than visual also has differences in interpretation like music or a film
I agree that intentions of the original artist are important as there is one piece of information that it likely to be lost otherwise.
Suppose there are 10 paintings which the artist uses to weave a coherent idea.
Each of them *must* be interpreted in a fashion conceived by the artist to bring about the intended result.
However, if different interpretations are to be taken into account after independently analyzing each painting, it is next to impossible that one might accidentally stumble upon a coherent enough idea rivalling that of the artist.
As such, I believe that instead of asking the question of "who", we should instead be focusing on experiential value, arguable parameters, information etc.
That way, these aspects would merely be a means to the result.
Well, I'm kind of on a middle ground, but I think it in musical terms, because most of the time I like to know that there is a deeper meaning behind what I'm listening too. I take it into consideration, but it also helps knowing most musical artists don't seem to mind if you have a different interpretation of their songs. And they are self aware of the fact that it can/will be interpreted in many ways.
Art should be ambiguous, that's what makes it last forever.
Why you need an interpretation? What's the use? What are you actually here for? What's the purpose of yours looking at the painting?
You wanna know what the artist was thinking? Go for his interpretation. You wanna enjoy the painting? Sit back and relax, either just mindlessly watching it or thinking about what could mean what. Or if you want to get inspired, if you are here for that? Do that.
I think a characteristic of ‘great’ art is that they have an endless multiplicity of interpretations and meanings.
We feel moments of flight like the sea foam and the splash of stars upon a vast ocean of space. A work of art evokes feelings in us to express what the artist perhaps also felt. Meaning comes later as a story of what we felt in the moment.
MY DEFINITIVE ANSWER: The intention of the artist is relevant to the extent that 1) we can access that knowledge (abt their intention) 2) the artist is very intentional and deliberate to the point of being deeply philosophical in their work. But, the case can be made that there might be subconscious elements that are found in a piece of art that even the artist was not consciously trying to imbue their artwork with.
I like how we are able to critique and view the same works of art today that multiple generations before us each had their own view of. I'm inclined to think that we are more privileged than them because 1) they were - in general - less open to various interpretations, since there were periods before where you had to fit in established schools of thought and there wasn't that climate of truly unfettered criticism of art and the production of art. We live in a more relaxed and open society than ever before.
2) we have the advantage of being the last ones to have our say on these works, i.e. the benefit of surveying all the different interpretations of the past, and then having our own more-informed interpretation.
The truth of art lies somewhere in the middle for me. Knowing the intentions of the artist can give so much more meaning to different works of art.
If the artist wants to express their intention, then it is their responsibility to make it clear in the text or art itself. If they cannot do this, then maybe they're not saying what they think they're saying.
I say this as someone with over 100 credit hours in literature studies.
Artists today have almost no authority of what their intentions are. Intentions are much more controlled by audiences and marketing. What we mostly gather in meaning from art can only be displayed by those who use it for power and control. Deconstruction, modern literary criticism, and that of advertising and marketing create the meaning for artists thus much of what can be said or heard about art is mostly on aesthetics.
Art is like life, you have to find your own meaning for it.
For me art is something that artist is trying to catch that uncatchable Moment, the present which is here forever but still different. It is something that is in human subconciousness from the beggining. Even with the music, whole orchestra could be just one single moment fractalized into infinity orders of harmony. Every artist is trying to tell us : dont wait for tommorow but live now in present, it will be here forever
in this video you might find some answer: Definitons of art / film art assignment ruclips.net/video/ZtpaVljGhAc/видео.html
1:03 "Red Bull gives you wings!"
2:22 answer to question 8
This channel is art itself that gives the universe meaning!!!
I really appreciate how the chef tossed that cupcake on the client's face😂
If art is expression then the artist's intention is paramount to the the piece's value as an artistic expression. Whether or not you see beauty in a misinterpretation doesn't change that- if you see something different than the artist intended then the artist has failed to express his or herself.
I´m a hobby painter. My painting has a meaning to me & i enjoy doing it for me. That means : At the time, i am not cocern with the other people oppinions , if they like it or not, if i make good money by selling it or not. perhaps later but not as i´ m by painting. Once it´s done, i´d like to share & discuss my ideas with others, but for simplicity let´s say : my job is done. What the others think about it, its their own evaluation, which are valuable to me , but not realy or truly my own.
The artist interpretation is the only one that matters, not critics nor the audience!
I think we should have both interpretations of art. That’s why we have untitled paintings but also very specific descriptive titles with backstories
We all have different backgrounds and therefore interpret things differently. At my university, they say that your analysis is acceptable as long as you have evidence. The author/artist will leave clues, but we have also been told that "the author is dead", which is a good way of looking at it. We cannot discuss the artist's intention, only the intention of that specific artwork/text. It can still mean something else to you on a personal level, but when you have all the tools to analyze it, you will probably see something else than if you let your heart and personal experiences be in charge.
Our interpretation is what really matters to us, author's attention doesn't matter to our opinion, I think good art is when we are the much closest to what the artist wanted to do
I think both intention and interpretation are important; as intention could create a new perspective on someone's interpretation and change it in a good way. On the other hand, if I were an artist, I'd make my intentions clear as day so that there is no room for interpretation. That probably isn't possible, as I will interpret a song to represent something that was not originally intended for example, but still.
I prefer the middle ground of Noel Carol (may have mispelled there). A creator's intention is important, regardless of the medium, yet if the audience can find a deeper meaning that is important to them or can use it as a starting point for a larger conversation is also valid. However, I don't believe that you should automatically assume that the creator/s of a work mean for it to have a political meaning unless they specifically say so. Sometimes a story is just a story.
As an artist myself, albeit amateur, I simply hope people like it and am interested in hearing what they THINK the meaning is. I might even wish that WAS what I intended if it's a great suggestion. Lol
May I see your work?
0:00
Only you.
If youre the artist and you wish to explain how you interpret your own piece then do so.
If not, then depending on how you present your work, you shouldn't be upset if people assume things that otherwise aren't the case in your view are entirely your fault.
However, people interpreting things for their own view sometimes helps them see things no one else can explain to them.
My personal opinion ~
:I loved the video
The artist's intention lead to the existence of the work but everyone's reaction when encountering the piece is valid as well.
Thank you for your information! Love from Indonesia
Your animations and music makes me feel like I wanna live in a world drawn and told by TED-Ed
I definitely think that the artists crafts for the audience. However, I would also say that art can be transformational for the viewer thereby bringing the audience which is slightly out of alignment with the language the artist is speaking into alignment with the artist's message. This I think is more valuable as it is stretching an individual's mind to intake an alternative viewpoint. Preaching to the choir is okay but transformation is more profound.
I think it'd be cool if the artists' intentions and my interpretation were the same. After all we always liked those who understand us and I think that's what we want when we see someone's artwork.
I thought you're going to try to explain what is and what isn't art.
What make art 'art'.
But this was great too.
Also,the animation style is so beautiful 🧡
I'm definitely more in line with the first view, but I don't agree at all that "the artist's interpretation of their own work [is] just one among many equally acceptable possibilities". It's like saying that if I were to say something, regardless of what I was actually trying to say, the words you think I said would be an interpretation as valid as what I was in fact thinking (and that that would also be an interpretation). Though you can try to interpret my words and get meaning out of them, I can't be "interpreting" my own phrases, just as an artist doesn't "interpret" their own work; they actually govern the intent behind those actions.
The artist's thoughts about the art *are* what it is supposed to convey, but the art _means_ what people have taken from it. To give a more specific example, imagine we're a rock concert and I say "You look rad today", but you hear me saying "You look bad today"; I actually meant to give you a compliment, and that is a fact - to say that I wanted to insult you would simply be wrong -, but you might have felt bad because of that, and that's perfectly valid. What I meant to say is irrelevant in terms of what you're feeling, but I still tried to say something.
I hope you guys get what I mean.
Those animations were just spectacular. Mind-blown!!
In the mid-20th century,philosopher. W.K. Wimsatt and Monroe C. Beardsley published The Intentional Fallacy. In it, they counter the contemporary assumption that the original creator's intention for a work was equal to the meaning and merit of the work. This raised serious questions in the critical realm about intention
Your animation is art at its finest. Love it!
If I painted something and I had my own intention; my own message to portray then that is what I want other people to know. Yes, I would like to hear what they think it is but I don't want them to be spreading around their beliefs as 'gospel truth' or arguing over their interpretations of the piece. I WANT MY INTENTION TO BE KNOWN BECAUSE THAT'S WHY I PAINTED IT :)
Edit: Gorgeous animation btw. Also, at 2:14 is that pollutant Trump?
I just came here to de-stress from some homework I was having trouble with. Thanks for this.
At some point, a distinction must arise between understanding the artist and understanding the art. Looking at intention is really both, and it's a mistake to think that a good artist must be a good communicator of intent. It's not that the artist's interpretation is just one of many, it's whether they are any good at communicating that intent.
In general, if it takes an art expert to determine intent, you're dealing with a bad communicator unless the intended audience is restricted to art experts, which is increasingly the case.
When looking at a painting on a wall, it needs to have 5 basic building blocks.
These are:
Line
Shape and form
Space
Color
Texture
How well the artist satisfies these 5 requirements determines the quality of the work.
Outside of this, it is up to the viewer to appreciate the artist's conception. Yes, it can help to understand the life of the artist, the era in which the artist grew up in, and the political/social events of the time.
Personally, a fine piece of art needs to be understood through the mind of the artist.
For example, while Vincent VanGogh's works are incredible, they become even MORE incredible once you know the story of his life.
Finally, much of today's modern art is not art: it is merely a social commentary, much like reading the op-ed of a newspaper.
In my opinion, the author's interpretation is THE interpretation, and the one that gives the piece meaning, because preceded it's creation, and not the other way around; however, any individual can have a singular interpretation of the piece of art, but this would be in a lower category than the author's.
Ok suppose there was a certain incident that happened in your life of deep emotional significance, and a piece of art represents, captures or reminds you of that incident. Then, what if it means more to you than what it meant to maybe even the artist? Will you rob somebody the chance to enjoy this art on a whole new different level with such a sweeping, mechanical statement? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, although the artist's intention can offer interesting insight. It's highly situational and relative, so we can't generalize.
@Mechanical Engineer Nejc Klemen Hey, while you make a lot of sense, why compare in the first place? Art, at the end of the day, is for one to enjoy right, so I think this debate isn't even like useful. I can choose to interpret art in any way I can, and nobody can stop me (unless the big brother sends his thought police :) Plus, I think artists will be honoured at different interpretations which they never thought of themselves.
@Mechanical Engineer Nejc Klemen wow I didn't even realise English isn't your second language.... You sound really fluent :)
Just what I needed....
Ted ed videos are ❤❤❤
As an artist myself🎭🖼🎨, the intention of my work vs. the way it's interpreted is something that often comes to mind. I'm a "middle ground" person myself.
I'd say both are true. The piece of art is a message the artist is trying to communicate, so clearly their intention is important. However if it is unclear what they are trying to say then they are doing a bad job of communicating their message. A good chef makes a dessert that matches his intentions, likewise a good artist makes his piece of art to match his intentions. If audiences cannot agree on some basic understanding of the painting then the artist has done a bad job of communicating his idea.
Now there ks the complication of ambiguity, in the case where the artist specifically wants his piece to be hard to interpret. In this case the artist wants to spark the debate itself and cause conversation by making his intentions ambiguous, yet his intentions are still there and the conversation is generated by the audience trying to figure out what his intentions were.
After that, it's up to the viewing audience to decide what it means to them ( art ) and how well it conveys whatever they think is the message.
Great Valuable Video
YESSS ANOTHER ART RELATED VIDEO THANK YOU TED ED
I think art is only art if it has meaning to someone. That is, if you can describe it in more than one way, I think it's art. If the only way to describe something meaningfully is "oil paint on canvas" then I don't think that's art, but if you can take the image you see and convert it into a concept in your brain that evokes some feeling or idea beyond what you visually see, I think that's art. It doesn't have to be an image though, it could be an incoherent mess, but if that mess says something to you- maybe it looks violent, or aggressive or maybe it says something about chaos or futility, it's still art.
I guess [visual] art then is a manipulation/activation of the image-recognition centers of our brains.
in this video you might find some answer: Definitons of art / film art assignment ruclips.net/video/ZtpaVljGhAc/видео.html
My answer: Intention only matters in regards to dismissing counter-interpretations of the art. Complementary or neutral interpretations to the artist's interpretations only act to heighten the depth of the art. It gives us new ways of thinking about the meaning of the art and even the art's intent. But when an person comes to an interpretation that is opposite of the creator's intent then no only does this create chaos, it reduces meaning.
Art is subject to law of diminishing returns, each additional valid interpretation adds meaning to the art, but less meaning than the prior valid interpretation. When a counter-interpretation is considered valid, you have reached the other side of the apex meaning and it all downhill from there.
in this video you might find some answer: Definitons of art / film art assignment ruclips.net/video/ZtpaVljGhAc/видео.html
This was amazing. Thank you for the continuous stunning works
The artist's intentions are equally important as the viewer's intentions, as long as neither of them assumes that their idea of the artwork's meaning is the only justifiable one. It's worth listening to opinions you don't understand or cannot relate to, so why would we even need a definitive answer for such a complex discussion?
Surely these philosophers have a reason to have these positions, but for me, I prefer the position in which you can choose to enjoy art either as was intentioned, that is if you were interested in empathizing with the artist or trying to understand him/her or his period...etc; or to enjoy it in the way that it affects you and to observe what it provokes in you or in your own interpretation.
I don't see why they have to be mutually exclusive.
I believe the whole meaning of art lies in the way each of us percieve it..and our perceptions naturally differ....an artist's intentions may or may not be different from ours but the art holds meaning from what we take from it
I'm firmly in the camp that art stands on its own. Understanding the artist's intentions *may* help an observer come to understand or appreciate a piece of art, but they don't define its meaning. Meaning and even beauty are objective concepts, in my opinion.
"The Artist does." - The Artist
But with that being said, the artist can KNOW what it means, but the wonderful thing about art is its objective subjectivity. As an artist I love other peoples interpretations of my creations.
In my opinion, an art piece (painting/poem/photograph/movie) should be interpreted by everyone according to their own, while also getting to know the intention of the artist. I compare this to a scientific invention like the wheel, which would have been first invented to craft pottery (most probably), but later usage of the wheel for transportation only adds to the importance of the wheel. New interpretations should not be shunned, but the original idea should not be forgotten.
Sometimes, we see that art can be re-interpreted to suit certain twisted ideologies, which are often exact opposite of what the artist intended. Hence the artist's view must be kept in mind while exploring other points of view.
Great artwork reference!... OK coming to the debate, the artist's intention should come out of his 'choice' not by some 'chance' . Whatever comes out of his choice speaks his expertise and that from chance comes out of just luck.
As an artist myself who is struggling to create a webcomic, I’d label my own personal opinions to be infinitely more important than the opinions of my audience, especially assuming that some of the people in the audience are mainly internet trolls.
Art is both subjective and objective. When the artist create an artwork it isn't 'his' anymore, it is for everyone. Artists brings the art to the visible world
I believe an artist is a vessel for expressing human experience. The interpretation of their work is as individual as each humans life.
Each person interprets life and art based on their own individual experiences.
ME (I personally see it as the subjectivity based on facts making the beauty of it because it becomes interpersonal and special for different people, and it's individual every time)
I go with a middle ground. Look at found art as an example. It was not created with any artistic intention, but rather became art through the placement of it into a context where it receives a new interpretation. The interpretation is crucial to its artistic value, but the interpretation does not have to originate with the creator. It can come from anyone. What is important is that it comes to have an artistic meaning to you, whether you created that meaning, it was suggested by the artist, or a fan theorized about it and that intrigued you.
My favorite example is Robert Frost's "Stopping by the Woods." Most critics will tell you it is about the long path toward death. Frost himself took it rather literally though, as a simple poem about a walk in the woods. But a popular theory that it is about Santa Claus adds a great deal of enjoyment as a secondary meaning. If any of those have meaning to you, then they have meaning and it is what the people means, even if it is not what was meant by the poem.
This example is often used when this topic is discussed academically.
It's a matter of every different perspectives that's created by our own different types,kinds, and levels of creativity within.
in this video you might find some answer: Definitons of art / film art assignment ruclips.net/video/ZtpaVljGhAc/видео.html
Please make a video on the Sator Rotas square!!! Everyone like this!!!
The artists plans most definitely effect its meaning, because that's the energy the artist is sending out into the world. That of course doesn't mean the work isn't open to a different interpretation by the viewer.
Crazy that I had this dilemma in my mind for years and never thought it might have been a philosophical debate. If you're interested in my opinion, I believe the intention of the artist is irrelevant as well. That's because I find nature just as beautiful and meaningful as art, and that interpretation is in my head alone, since no particular artist was responsible for nature. That means what someone thinks about the art is purely subject in my opinion.
in this video you will find the answer: Definitons of art / film art assignment ruclips.net/video/ZtpaVljGhAc/видео.html
I always thought of this. I thought the same for music. Whenever i listen to a song, i let it sink in and imagine the view and create my own scenery and storyline. Then when i see the original music video and artists involved, i get very sad and unmotivated when i come to know what the song really is about and that my favorite 5 seconds of that melody was just a filler.
I believe it's both. Meaning is malleable. The observation of truth And how you interpret that truth are two separate things. I could say red for love and my friend could say red for war but in general their both passionate... And that passion is neutral, whether we as a viewer dictate that it's for love or for war is debatable but both can agree in the end of the day that it's passionate in general.