I saw Starry Night in person. Most images do not do it justice. The paint is thick and far more vibrant than most photos you see. As I stood there just a few feet from it and taking it in, I got a sense of joy and fun. I came to the conclusion that he had fun making that painting, The thickness of it and the swirling just felt like he was having more fun moving and building up paint and that was just as important than actually creating the image. Knowing what we know of Van Gogh I think he may have been in a manic state when he made it, which he expresses with the energy and movement of what is actually a rather still scene.
Thank you. There is an oversaturation in assigning purpose and meaning and it kills many art works. It can have meaning, but let that unfold over time, if there is any at all.
Painting your own pictures is a nice way to see art more deeply, words only detach you further from it. Van Gogh gets more incredible with every painting you do.
That’s such a great point! Creating your own art really does help you connect with the work on a deeper level. When you understand how colors, textures, and brushstrokes come together, it makes you appreciate the skill and vision behind pieces even more.
I'm an artist, and that's how I create art, out of my initial response, not out of a concept about something. I don't have a neat and clever idea I want the viewer to "get", and I'm certainly not overly bothered about what the historical context I'm creating in, every time I pick up a brush. So many people look at art as being some kind of second-hand copy of reality, or a packaged idea you have to decode to "get", or as a history lesson (museums collude with this notion, in their audio tapes meant to guide the viewer through the gallery with the "right" intellectual and emotional responses pre-recorded for them, blocking any genuine avanues to engaging with each piece, which is competing for attention with numerous other pieces). It rarely occurs to anyone to just stand on front of a real artwork with no expectations, and see what happens, or if anything does, on a visceral level as well as maybe an emotional or intellectual one. Art has its own way of speaking to the viewer, but other noises overlaid, and rushing through art, doesn't help the viewer experience it for themselves, which is what a lot of artists would like to think could happen. It's about authenticity for the artist, and could be for the viewer, too, if they wish to slow down, drop the baggage, and enjoy.
I went to a local gallery that has no identifiers on any of the artworks. You get given an iphone that brings up whatever works are nearby and you have to scroll through to find the work. It also comes with a headset. I take the phone, but not the headset because I don't need an endless ream of blah, blah, blah chewing away at my ears while I view art. I only use the phone if I find a work particularly engaging and want to know who the artist is or what the medium is. Every time I go there they try to push the head set on me. I politely say no thankyou. Last time I was there the employee wouldn't take no for an answer, several times haranguing me that it was essential that I have the headset because it would "enhance" my experience. FIVE TIMES I had to say no. I haven't been back.
Thank you for sharing your experience as an artist-it really connects with what Sontag was getting at in Against Interpretation. Your point about creating art from an initial response, rather than trying to force a concept, illustrates how art can be authentic when it’s born from a raw, visceral place. I also agree that the way galleries and museums often present art-with audio guides and pre-set narratives-can sometimes get in the way of truly experiencing it for what it is, on our terms.
I agree that making art out of my own sensual impulses is much more engaging. But I also find it hard to shake of the need to conceptualize my work, as if a concept gives me some kind of permission to make something.
I was very shocked to watch this cuz the way you described feeling the art is how I assumed typical art analysis already worked? I don't really read art analyses, but when I'm producing art everything is in the colors, the shapes, the contrasts, the *FORM* is the expression of the emotions and ideas, the meaning isn't just in the objective content. Idk how you can analyze a work of art and ignore all that
It’s great that you naturally engage with art in this way! Many people don’t realize that formal elements like color, shape, and form are central to art, not just the subject matter. Sontag’s point is that critics often focus too much on intellectual meaning, forgetting to appreciate the emotional and sensory experience of the artwork itself.
@0megaFalcon Me too. When I put a red next to an orange in my paintings, that's what I mean. I mean THIS red next to THIS orange, in the context of the rest of this painting; look at how they combine and enrich each other, etc. Yes, It might be a painting of an abandoned building, and yes, the pathos and poetry in that vision was my first inspiration, but once you are painting it, it is the formal elements that are the main concern.
Very glad to have this recommendation, it's been many years since the first time reading Sontag's thoughts on art and our experiences with it. I needed this reminder, thank you.
Sontag's writing has a way of sticking with you, doesn't it? It’s easy to get caught up in overanalyzing art or falling into the routine of “interpreting” everything. So, sometimes we need the reminder to just feel the art and let it affect us on a more sensory and emotional level. Thanks for watching and taking the time to share your thoughts!
Interestingly for me the wheelbarrow evokes work. 'so much depends'. A wheelbarrow is a tool and I immediately think of hoisting its handles, not a cute calming rustic scene. This is an intuitive reaction based on experience, not reaching for abstract meaning. I must read Sontag again.
i think the way you described “feeling” art actually gives certain pieces *more* meaning because the way you feel the artwork gives a personalized meaning to it, if that makes sense. especially with art genres like abstract expressionism where it’s an expression of how the artist or maybe even the viewer *feels* rather than depicting a scene or subject
I look at it this way: if the painting or work of art does not engage me at a sensual level, be it color, texture etc, I am not much interested in engaging with it intellectually. Much of this need for interpretation seems to come from the desire to understand art, especially art that is not representational or at very least not photorealistic. As an artist I still find it very hard to find this sensory position in my own work. Coming from a background of conceptualisation it is quite hard to find freedom in just making art without needing an idea to back me up.
I hear the argument Sonntags proposes. Bear in mind though that as soon as some meaning is expressed or attached, it is already an interpretation. Hermeneutics is much more than merely looking for meaning "behind" something. I thoroughly agree with the pre-cognitive relationshio-immersion approach as one credible and important interpretation.
Thank you for your thoughtful comment! I agree that hermeneutics encompasses far more than just searching for hidden meanings behind a work of art. It's an interpretative process that can involve understanding context, history, or the interplay between form and content. I don't think Sontag rejected all interpretation, but she did critique the overemphasis on intellectual analysis that, she wrote, sometimes disconnects us from the sensory experience of art. I appreciate your support for the pre-cognitive, immersive approach as one valid way to engage with art. It’s true that as soon as we engage with something, we’re already interpreting it to some extent. Sontag’s point seems to be that we should allow room for feeling before rushing to intellectualize the experience. Both approaches-immersion and interpretation-have their place in the rich relationship we have with art. Thanks again for sharing your insights!
Yes, thank you. This is mostly how I experience art. I just refuse to let anyone force an interpretation of it cerebrally. After experiencing it "just as it simply is" and steeping in the sensory experience of it, I allow/invite subtler hints and interpretations to surface if they want to. Interesting insights spontaneously arise in this way and don't necessarily need to be shared and don't require "thinking" in the normal way--they arise like a meditative insight: a sudden knowing or recognition. After stirring the pot, hidden ingredients rise into view.
Good points. Personally, I don't mind some intellectual interpreting, and sometimes find this insightful and interesting. What I don't like is when people cling to specific, rigid interpretations of a piece of art, and suggest it is the one 'right' or 'correct' way. What that does is it sets limitations on the art, it restricts it and makes it mundane. Art that can be restricted to a literal verbal analysis is not art. Art is something that responds to a need to express something more than what words used in a conventional way can express. It speaks a language of the soul. True art is something that will defy strict literal analysis, and not even the creator of the art will understand everything about it. If one looks into the creative process of great artists one will usually find that process is mysterious, even to the artist themselves, who are acting perhaps as a kind of conduit for something. Great art has an element of mystery, without which it ceases to be art.
Do not tell me that you cannot look at ancient cave paintings and immediately see that they are the reverence these people had for the animals they hunted.
@@f0xygem You could be right, but I don't assume to know exactly their reasons, how could one know for sure? You are lying to yourself if you think you know all the answers. Even if it was written somewhere that the reason they made these paintings was because of the reverence they had for the animals, there would still be unanswered questions about these people and the circumstances related to the paintings. The farther back in time, the more mysterious things become to us. Those paintings certainly evoke a sense of mystery. Nature itself is profoundly mysterious. No one knows everything about it's origins or can explain everything about it, and every moment it changes.
When art speaks “a language of the soul,” as you beautifully put it, it taps into something that’s beyond the confines of literal analysis. That’s why art can be so powerful-it invites personal, emotional, and even subconscious reactions that often defy strict interpretation.
Here for a big ol disagree (: Interpretation often allows one to feel a work more deeply, and take more understanding from the work. A work that is challenging might not make all the ways it challenges you apparent, through tricky metaphor and subtext. Once some of the context is discovered through analysis, new sensory meanings can be felt. Often knowing what something means or 'getting it' far from removes the challenges in the work. I am a poet, and apply this specifically to my preferred art, but I do also agree with feeling and sensing. However, my second big point is that analysis and sensory experience are rarely exclusive. My process of 'analysis' always involves reading a poem multiple times before picking up my analysis pen and just enjoying the work, and then, since analysis is not the only goal, once I have pulled meaning from the poem, I make sure to read it again at the end, purely with senses, and not the analysis, and I consistently find new feeling, emotion, and joy from the work. I think the idea of anti-analysis is unproductive, since this makes a dichotomy where there does not need to be one. Of course, some people intellectualize and lose some feeling, and I would encourage them to read purely for emotion sometimes, but that doesn't mean fully abandoning analysis.
I'm not sure asking people to view art the way most people in their ignorance already see it anyway, is revolutionary. The first time you experience a piece of art you're probably just as ignorant anyway, interpretation is usually something that comes later. Like, on the one hand I knew about Van Gogh's supposed mental instability, but I have never thought about its affect on _Starry Night,_ having said that... the image itself has been ubiquitous since I was a kid, I feel like I've been deprived of a "first experience" with it. Lastly I find that viewing art this way, for me, is usually more "meditative" than it is emotional. Regardless of the content.
You’re right that a lot of people already experience art in a more instinctive, unreflective way at first. Sontag’s point is about giving space to those initial reactions and not rushing to intellectualize or interpret too quickly. I can see how the meditative aspect of viewing art might come more naturally to you, and that’s just as valid as having an emotional response!
Here is my take. Art has been around for a long, long, long time. In fact since we lived in caves, that's a while. Art is part of us as humans whether we make it or consume it. Medieval art was for the most part religious art and it was full of symbolism and meaning. The symbolism and meaning in the Middle Ages was derived partly from scripture and partly from Greek, Roman, Norse or other mythologies. The portrait of a man is simply the portrait, but sometimes like some of Anthony van Dyck portraits there are some hidden symbolisms in those portraits. Meaning which means something to the sitter (aka the person paying for the artwork). For example the portrait of James Stuart is done with his dog and he's wearing a medal. Clearly the dog is there because it meant something to the Duke. I don't believe that art is made to shock or amuse. It's just made because the artists wants to make it. I am an artist and I make art because I enjoy it and I draw or paint what I want and what I enjoy. There is no deeper meaning to it, I'm not trying to shock anyone. It's just what I enjoy. I don't think anyone is experiencing art wrong. You want to think a blank canvass means something, or that a banana taped to a wall has a meaning of sorts. Great, enjoy it. Art is simply to be experienced and enjoyed by the viewer. That's it. Give it whatever meaning you want, trust me the artist won't care.
Amen. I am so sick of idiots coming up with bullshit to justify the existence of a piece of art. We’ve read the Emperors New Clothes. It’s obvious a lot of people haven’t
I saw a winner in a prestigious print prize that was so far below the quality of the other finalists, however, the artist had spun a web of inglorious bullshit around the piece that "wowed" the judges, all of whom were university art academics. I maintain that the artist won a creative writing exercise, not an art competition.
I hear you, and you’re not alone in feeling frustrated with over-intellectualizing art. Some people do tend to overcomplicate things or try to attach unnecessary meaning where there might not be any. Oscar Wilde’s idea that “all art is quite useless” was, in part, a reaction to this very issue. He asserted that art didn’t need to serve any higher purpose beyond being beautiful or enjoyable. At the end of the day, art should speak for itself, and everyone is free to enjoy it on their terms without pressure to justify its existence. Thanks for sharing your take!
This is a crisis for the social media generations--millennials and Z's. Those of us weaned on books, art, pre-internet music and traditional cinema have relatively greater capacity to simply be present for a work of art or entertainment as an experience rather than prosaic "content."
Art comes from ages when intuitive perception, myth and awe were constituents of everyday life. But such cognition sounds naive to a culture used to think of its own hyperintellectualization as the apex of intelligence. Art reminds us of our roots.
People experience art, each in their own way. To try to dictate how one must experience art is antithetical to the great experience of art, which each person has in a way that best suits them. Ironically, she is overintellectualizing how people 'should' experience art. Everyone should enjoy it in their own way.
A note on pronunciation. Dissect is not pronounced the same way that bisect and trisect are. The difference is that there are two s’s in diSSect making the prefix of dissect DIS and not DI. BI sect is to cut in two pieces. TRI sect is to cut in three. But the prefix DIS has the meaning “”to undo” as in DIS appear or DIS like or DIS agree. So, dissect means to unsection or to take apart.
Looking at art in this way may allow nonartists to see art as if they were artists. I am a poet and my poems start as just a specific flow of sounds in my head. They often rhyme or use alliteration or maybe I will discover that the syllables are the same in 2 or 3 lines in a row or sometimes a line repeats. I don't analyze this while I write it. I would get too in my own way if I did that. People who don't "get" art are those who have completely divorced themselves from that sensory experience of art that she talks about. Funny enough, perhaps reinforcing her point, these people often double down on interpretation. Maybe they will take a college course or 2 in it or watch a overly cumbersome RUclips video about it. Has an art appreciation class ever actually made people appreciate art? If anything, these classes destroy the spirit of art in students who already greatly enjoy art. That all being said, I think you have to interpret eventually. A way to put some of these ideas in practice would be to listen to a song like 4 times before you ever Google the lyrics or go to an art museum and avoid the blurbs.
Your approach with poetry, letting the flow and rhythm guide you before stepping back to reflect, really captures the kind of engagement Sontag encouraged.
I wouldn't deny the value of art appreciation classes - they can't make you appreciate art anymore than the way painting classes can't make you an artist. They give you tools and mental models to look at art and make connections which have been handed down over centuries of thought.
I don't think I ever bothered to feel Van Gogh's starry night. Ive seen it plenty of times, but Its somewhat rare for me to try to look at a painting on a screen like I do at paintings in real life. It's a crisp breeze, on a chilly night, hills fluttering like rolls in cloth. with the milky way above, shimmering as a stream running over a bed of gems. it feels so cold, I want to go in, to sleep. but I cant stop looking just a few more minutes, then i'll go, but not yet. not yet. just a few more minutes.
I love how you've articulated that experience of The Starry Night. That feeling of wanting to immerse yourself in the painting, holding onto the moment just a little longer, captures exactly what Sontag was talking about-allowing art to affect us without rushing to explain or intellectualize it. Thank you for sharing this-it's a perfect example of what Sontag’s “erotics of art” is all about!
I disagree wholeheartedly. There is a lot of art out there with absolutely no meaning and this is where I place the value of your idea. On basic art that is just people creating things without purpose. But the art in media, in museums, in our societal sphere, those artforms are absolutely defined, not just in liberal interpretations, but from essays and letters from the artists or their masters. Then theres the technicality of the art. Anyone can pick up a brush and pencil, but there are actual techniques on display and viewers should absolutely look at those lines and strokes and color mixing and think or be told something. On top of that, most people are not creative. Most people do not understand the techniques that were used to produce the art. Most people couldnt imply a meaning if you were hitting them over the head with it. So the guides are for people like that. They are there for people who just look at it and dont really see anything other than someone's "poor" interpretation of flowers. This is also why everyday people are so impressed with photorealism. It just looks so hard to do. I mean compare the crayola mess that is van gogh to davinci or dali. Davinci shows off his ability to get depth and shape through basic techniques with an abaility to get detailed and Dali's basic objects in illogical positions makes people think when they see it. But van gogh...people see that and can't understand why it is a famous painting when their toddler did something similar 3 days ago. They arent aware of the romantic period or how it shifted to impressionism and why van gogh is regarded as a master of his craft and how he even coined his own art style. You arent going to learn that outside of college or a museum. I think guides are important for people. It creates a foundation for learning more, but it also just creates a foundation.
Thank you for sharing such a detailed perspective! I agree that for many people, guides and background information can be really helpful in appreciating the techniques or historical context of art. Sontag wasn’t dismissing this entirely-she just suggested that sometimes, over-explaining can interfere with the sensory experience of art itself. There’s definitely room for both approaches: appreciating technique and history while also allowing space for an emotional or instinctive reaction.
The whole premise dismisses meaning by randomly applying to it lower value and continues from there. This is undetermined and lowering the importance of meaning for the sake of presenting your point as valid is dishonest and cowardly
Thank you for your comment! I understand where you're coming from. The goal of the video isn't to dismiss meaning entirely. The purpose is to explore Susan Sontag’s argument that we've become overly focused on interpreting meaning in art, often at the expense of experiencing it emotionally or sensually. Sontag’s call for an “erotics of art” suggests that sometimes we intellectualize art too much. This can lead to missing out on its more immediate, visceral impact. Meaning does have value, but there’s more than one way to engage with art-sometimes through thought, and sometimes through pure experience. Thanks again for sharing your perspective!
I don't think that you can dissect art. The intellectual and emotional aspects of a work of art cannot be separated and you can't figure out in some way what makes a good work of art in an intellectual manner which would lead to developing a formula for making good art which is impossible. AI can make stuff like that and when you look at it it's really ugly to me even though our culture accepts a lot of ugly things as if it were beautiful. Renoir said that perfection is the enemy of art and I think so too.
I love how you highlight the inseparability of the intellectual and emotional aspects of art-it's true that dissecting art into a formula misses the point. Art isn’t just about ticking technical boxes, and that’s where AI-generated works fall short-they might mimic technique, but they lack the soul.
Thanks for the feedback! I definitely didn't mean to come across as preachy or imply there's only one way to appreciate art. You're right-people can absolutely engage with art in multiple ways at once, whether it's feeling, thinking, or both at the same time. Sontag’s idea was just one approach to help balance the tendency to overanalyze, but it’s not meant to suggest that’s the only valid way to experience art. Everyone’s connection to art is personal, and how we engage with it should be as unique as our tastes. I appreciate you calling that out, and I’m glad the discussion prompted some good conversation!
Well, if it's van Gogh there's at least enough to have thoughts lke these. But if yu're in front of a pile of trash (or other modern art), what's to do?
I get where you’re coming from! Some modern art can feel harder to engage with, especially when it seems like it’s pushing boundaries just for the sake of it. But Sontag’s perspective can actually help here too. Instead of asking, “What does this mean?” with a pile of trash or something less traditional, maybe it’s about asking, “How does this make me feel?” or “What kind of reaction is this trying to provoke?” Even something as unconventional as modern installations might evoke surprise, frustration, or curiosity. Sometimes, the art is the experience or the thought it forces you to confront, rather than a pretty picture to look at. You might not get the same kind of emotional connection as you would with a van Gogh, but modern art often asks you to feel uncomfortable or to question what art even is. It doesn’t always hit the mark, but sometimes that visceral reaction is exactly the point.
@DrElanK I do like your take. I guess I'm a bit frustrated because there is nothing but modern art in my area, and every time I try, all I get is confusion. At best, I can see the energy, but it's just all so lacking in the artful handiwork of it all, and it's so hard to look past that.
when the narrator of the perception of art sits in a stupid room, against the backdrop of a stupid tree and a stupid picture behind, in a stupid T-shirt with a stupid hairstyle and a stupid tattoo, how will it be perceived through calls for form and eroticism?))
I saw Starry Night in person. Most images do not do it justice. The paint is thick and far more vibrant than most photos you see. As I stood there just a few feet from it and taking it in, I got a sense of joy and fun. I came to the conclusion that he had fun making that painting, The thickness of it and the swirling just felt like he was having more fun moving and building up paint and that was just as important than actually creating the image. Knowing what we know of Van Gogh I think he may have been in a manic state when he made it, which he expresses with the energy and movement of what is actually a rather still scene.
That sounds like an incredible experience! Seeing The Starry Night in person must have brought out a whole new dimension of van Gogh’s process.
Thank you. There is an oversaturation in assigning purpose and meaning and it kills many art works. It can have meaning, but let that unfold over time, if there is any at all.
Painting your own pictures is a nice way to see art more deeply, words only detach you further from it. Van Gogh gets more incredible with every painting you do.
That’s such a great point! Creating your own art really does help you connect with the work on a deeper level. When you understand how colors, textures, and brushstrokes come together, it makes you appreciate the skill and vision behind pieces even more.
“Treat a work of art like a prince: let it speak to you first.”
― Arthur Schopenhauer
I'm an artist, and that's how I create art, out of my initial response, not out of a concept about something. I don't have a neat and clever idea I want the viewer to "get", and I'm certainly not overly bothered about what the historical context I'm creating in, every time I pick up a brush. So many people look at art as being some kind of second-hand copy of reality, or a packaged idea you have to decode to "get", or as a history lesson (museums collude with this notion, in their audio tapes meant to guide the viewer through the gallery with the "right" intellectual and emotional responses pre-recorded for them, blocking any genuine avanues to engaging with each piece, which is competing for attention with numerous other pieces). It rarely occurs to anyone to just stand on front of a real artwork with no expectations, and see what happens, or if anything does, on a visceral level as well as maybe an emotional or intellectual one. Art has its own way of speaking to the viewer, but other noises overlaid, and rushing through art, doesn't help the viewer experience it for themselves, which is what a lot of artists would like to think could happen. It's about authenticity for the artist, and could be for the viewer, too, if they wish to slow down, drop the baggage, and enjoy.
I went to a local gallery that has no identifiers on any of the artworks. You get given an iphone that brings up whatever works are nearby and you have to scroll through to find the work. It also comes with a headset. I take the phone, but not the headset because I don't need an endless ream of blah, blah, blah chewing away at my ears while I view art. I only use the phone if I find a work particularly engaging and want to know who the artist is or what the medium is. Every time I go there they try to push the head set on me. I politely say no thankyou. Last time I was there the employee wouldn't take no for an answer, several times haranguing me that it was essential that I have the headset because it would "enhance" my experience. FIVE TIMES I had to say no. I haven't been back.
Thank you for sharing your experience as an artist-it really connects with what Sontag was getting at in Against Interpretation. Your point about creating art from an initial response, rather than trying to force a concept, illustrates how art can be authentic when it’s born from a raw, visceral place. I also agree that the way galleries and museums often present art-with audio guides and pre-set narratives-can sometimes get in the way of truly experiencing it for what it is, on our terms.
your initial response is conceptually mediated and will chanted when you change the mediation.
I agree that making art out of my own sensual impulses is much more engaging. But I also find it hard to shake of the need to conceptualize my work, as if a concept gives me some kind of permission to make something.
Skavop, your comment made me understand Sontag a bit more (had to read the text for contemporary history art class), so, thank you!
I was very shocked to watch this cuz the way you described feeling the art is how I assumed typical art analysis already worked? I don't really read art analyses, but when I'm producing art everything is in the colors, the shapes, the contrasts, the *FORM* is the expression of the emotions and ideas, the meaning isn't just in the objective content. Idk how you can analyze a work of art and ignore all that
It’s great that you naturally engage with art in this way! Many people don’t realize that formal elements like color, shape, and form are central to art, not just the subject matter. Sontag’s point is that critics often focus too much on intellectual meaning, forgetting to appreciate the emotional and sensory experience of the artwork itself.
@0megaFalcon Me too. When I put a red next to an orange in my paintings, that's what I mean. I mean THIS red next to THIS orange, in the context of the rest of this painting; look at how they combine and enrich each other, etc. Yes, It might be a painting of an abandoned building, and yes, the pathos and poetry in that vision was my first inspiration, but once you are painting it, it is the formal elements that are the main concern.
Very glad to have this recommendation, it's been many years since the first time reading Sontag's thoughts on art and our experiences with it. I needed this reminder, thank you.
Sontag's writing has a way of sticking with you, doesn't it? It’s easy to get caught up in overanalyzing art or falling into the routine of “interpreting” everything. So, sometimes we need the reminder to just feel the art and let it affect us on a more sensory and emotional level. Thanks for watching and taking the time to share your thoughts!
Interestingly for me the wheelbarrow evokes work. 'so much depends'. A wheelbarrow is a tool and I immediately think of hoisting its handles, not a cute calming rustic scene. This is an intuitive reaction based on experience, not reaching for abstract meaning. I must read Sontag again.
If it makes me feel, it is art.
That’s my standard as well.
YES!!!
Yes
i think the way you described “feeling” art actually gives certain pieces *more* meaning because the way you feel the artwork gives a personalized meaning to it, if that makes sense. especially with art genres like abstract expressionism where it’s an expression of how the artist or maybe even the viewer *feels* rather than depicting a scene or subject
I look at it this way: if the painting or work of art does not engage me at a sensual level, be it color, texture etc, I am not much interested in engaging with it intellectually. Much of this need for interpretation seems to come from the desire to understand art, especially art that is not representational or at very least not photorealistic.
As an artist I still find it very hard to find this sensory position in my own work. Coming from a background of conceptualisation it is quite hard to find freedom in just making art without needing an idea to back me up.
I hear the argument Sonntags proposes. Bear in mind though that as soon as some meaning is expressed or attached, it is already an interpretation. Hermeneutics is much more than merely looking for meaning "behind" something. I thoroughly agree with the pre-cognitive relationshio-immersion approach as one credible and important interpretation.
Thank you for your thoughtful comment! I agree that hermeneutics encompasses far more than just searching for hidden meanings behind a work of art. It's an interpretative process that can involve understanding context, history, or the interplay between form and content. I don't think Sontag rejected all interpretation, but she did critique the overemphasis on intellectual analysis that, she wrote, sometimes disconnects us from the sensory experience of art.
I appreciate your support for the pre-cognitive, immersive approach as one valid way to engage with art. It’s true that as soon as we engage with something, we’re already interpreting it to some extent. Sontag’s point seems to be that we should allow room for feeling before rushing to intellectualize the experience. Both approaches-immersion and interpretation-have their place in the rich relationship we have with art. Thanks again for sharing your insights!
@@DrElanKIn my limited exposure to art history, Gombrich's writing on art comes pretty close to what you're saying with being overly intellectual.
Yes, thank you. This is mostly how I experience art. I just refuse to let anyone force an interpretation of it cerebrally. After experiencing it "just as it simply is" and steeping in the sensory experience of it, I allow/invite subtler hints and interpretations to surface if they want to. Interesting insights spontaneously arise in this way and don't necessarily need to be shared and don't require "thinking" in the normal way--they arise like a meditative insight: a sudden knowing or recognition. After stirring the pot, hidden ingredients rise into view.
Your approach to experiencing art sounds so mindful and intuitive. Thanks for sharing!
Thank you for the logic, the creative logic
Great video!!!!
Good points. Personally, I don't mind some intellectual interpreting, and sometimes find this insightful and interesting. What I don't like is when people cling to specific, rigid interpretations of a piece of art, and suggest it is the one 'right' or 'correct' way. What that does is it sets limitations on the art, it restricts it and makes it mundane. Art that can be restricted to a literal verbal analysis is not art. Art is something that responds to a need to express something more than what words used in a conventional way can express. It speaks a language of the soul. True art is something that will defy strict literal analysis, and not even the creator of the art will understand everything about it. If one looks into the creative process of great artists one will usually find that process is mysterious, even to the artist themselves, who are acting perhaps as a kind of conduit for something. Great art has an element of mystery, without which it ceases to be art.
Yes. Yes, yes yes. Well said.
Do not tell me that you cannot look at ancient cave paintings and immediately see that they are the reverence these people had for the animals they hunted.
@@f0xygem You could be right, but I don't assume to know exactly their reasons, how could one know for sure? You are lying to yourself if you think you know all the answers. Even if it was written somewhere that the reason they made these paintings was because of the reverence they had for the animals, there would still be unanswered questions about these people and the circumstances related to the paintings. The farther back in time, the more mysterious things become to us. Those paintings certainly evoke a sense of mystery. Nature itself is profoundly mysterious. No one knows everything about it's origins or can explain everything about it, and every moment it changes.
When art speaks “a language of the soul,” as you beautifully put it, it taps into something that’s beyond the confines of literal analysis. That’s why art can be so powerful-it invites personal, emotional, and even subconscious reactions that often defy strict interpretation.
Art gives us the ability to stare at a human with a length and intensity which would otherwise be considered unacceptable.
Here for a big ol disagree (: Interpretation often allows one to feel a work more deeply, and take more understanding from the work. A work that is challenging might not make all the ways it challenges you apparent, through tricky metaphor and subtext. Once some of the context is discovered through analysis, new sensory meanings can be felt. Often knowing what something means or 'getting it' far from removes the challenges in the work. I am a poet, and apply this specifically to my preferred art, but I do also agree with feeling and sensing.
However, my second big point is that analysis and sensory experience are rarely exclusive. My process of 'analysis' always involves reading a poem multiple times before picking up my analysis pen and just enjoying the work, and then, since analysis is not the only goal, once I have pulled meaning from the poem, I make sure to read it again at the end, purely with senses, and not the analysis, and I consistently find new feeling, emotion, and joy from the work.
I think the idea of anti-analysis is unproductive, since this makes a dichotomy where there does not need to be one. Of course, some people intellectualize and lose some feeling, and I would encourage them to read purely for emotion sometimes, but that doesn't mean fully abandoning analysis.
Imagine thinking there’s a wrong way to enjoy art.
I'm not sure asking people to view art the way most people in their ignorance already see it anyway, is revolutionary. The first time you experience a piece of art you're probably just as ignorant anyway, interpretation is usually something that comes later. Like, on the one hand I knew about Van Gogh's supposed mental instability, but I have never thought about its affect on _Starry Night,_ having said that... the image itself has been ubiquitous since I was a kid, I feel like I've been deprived of a "first experience" with it.
Lastly I find that viewing art this way, for me, is usually more "meditative" than it is emotional. Regardless of the content.
You’re right that a lot of people already experience art in a more instinctive, unreflective way at first. Sontag’s point is about giving space to those initial reactions and not rushing to intellectualize or interpret too quickly. I can see how the meditative aspect of viewing art might come more naturally to you, and that’s just as valid as having an emotional response!
Here is my take.
Art has been around for a long, long, long time. In fact since we lived in caves, that's a while. Art is part of us as humans whether we make it or consume it.
Medieval art was for the most part religious art and it was full of symbolism and meaning. The symbolism and meaning in the Middle Ages was derived partly from scripture and partly from Greek, Roman, Norse or other mythologies. The portrait of a man is simply the portrait, but sometimes like some of Anthony van Dyck portraits there are some hidden symbolisms in those portraits. Meaning which means something to the sitter (aka the person paying for the artwork). For example the portrait of James Stuart is done with his dog and he's wearing a medal. Clearly the dog is there because it meant something to the Duke.
I don't believe that art is made to shock or amuse. It's just made because the artists wants to make it. I am an artist and I make art because I enjoy it and I draw or paint what I want and what I enjoy. There is no deeper meaning to it, I'm not trying to shock anyone. It's just what I enjoy.
I don't think anyone is experiencing art wrong. You want to think a blank canvass means something, or that a banana taped to a wall has a meaning of sorts. Great, enjoy it. Art is simply to be experienced and enjoyed by the viewer. That's it. Give it whatever meaning you want, trust me the artist won't care.
i have heard that art is not finished until it is experienced. spectators do artvby interpretation
Amen.
I am so sick of idiots coming up with bullshit to justify the existence of a piece of art.
We’ve read the Emperors New Clothes. It’s obvious a lot of people haven’t
I saw a winner in a prestigious print prize that was so far below the quality of the other finalists, however, the artist had spun a web of inglorious bullshit around the piece that "wowed" the judges, all of whom were university art academics. I maintain that the artist won a creative writing exercise, not an art competition.
I hear you, and you’re not alone in feeling frustrated with over-intellectualizing art. Some people do tend to overcomplicate things or try to attach unnecessary meaning where there might not be any. Oscar Wilde’s idea that “all art is quite useless” was, in part, a reaction to this very issue. He asserted that art didn’t need to serve any higher purpose beyond being beautiful or enjoyable. At the end of the day, art should speak for itself, and everyone is free to enjoy it on their terms without pressure to justify its existence. Thanks for sharing your take!
@@DrElanK and Mr Wilde’s it seems.
This is a crisis for the social media generations--millennials and Z's. Those of us weaned on books, art, pre-internet music and traditional cinema have relatively greater capacity to simply be present for a work of art or entertainment as an experience rather than prosaic "content."
Art comes from ages when intuitive perception, myth and awe were constituents of everyday life. But such cognition sounds naive to a culture used to think of its own hyperintellectualization as the apex of intelligence. Art reminds us of our roots.
I agree, but art can also benefit from a technical analysis.
True and the video doesn't negate it at all. Sontag seems to caution us against intellectualising art too much at the expense of feelings.
like my dude Zeek sez: "experience it brah ,
don't study it"
What is great art? A few select critics decide, then they elite can be assured of the value of their purchases.
What would Sontag say about Thomas kinkade?
Would Thomas care what she says? 😂
The Buddha holds up a flower. Without comments.
Sometimes i just go to art galleries to read the pretentious descriptions of the artworks
People experience art, each in their own way. To try to dictate how one must experience art is antithetical to the great experience of art, which each person has in a way that best suits them. Ironically, she is overintellectualizing how people 'should' experience art. Everyone should enjoy it in their own way.
A note on pronunciation.
Dissect is not pronounced the same way that bisect and trisect are.
The difference is that there are two s’s in diSSect making the prefix of dissect DIS and not DI.
BI sect is to cut in two pieces.
TRI sect is to cut in three.
But the prefix DIS has the meaning “”to undo” as in DIS appear or DIS like or DIS agree.
So, dissect means to unsection or to take apart.
Whose pronunciation? Like most english words it depends on which country or even region you are from.
Thanks for bringing up such a detailed observation!
It’s DI-ssect. Don’t be pompous.
Looking at art in this way may allow nonartists to see art as if they were artists. I am a poet and my poems start as just a specific flow of sounds in my head. They often rhyme or use alliteration or maybe I will discover that the syllables are the same in 2 or 3 lines in a row or sometimes a line repeats. I don't analyze this while I write it. I would get too in my own way if I did that. People who don't "get" art are those who have completely divorced themselves from that sensory experience of art that she talks about. Funny enough, perhaps reinforcing her point, these people often double down on interpretation. Maybe they will take a college course or 2 in it or watch a overly cumbersome RUclips video about it. Has an art appreciation class ever actually made people appreciate art? If anything, these classes destroy the spirit of art in students who already greatly enjoy art.
That all being said, I think you have to interpret eventually. A way to put some of these ideas in practice would be to listen to a song like 4 times before you ever Google the lyrics or go to an art museum and avoid the blurbs.
Your approach with poetry, letting the flow and rhythm guide you before stepping back to reflect, really captures the kind of engagement Sontag encouraged.
I wouldn't deny the value of art appreciation classes - they can't make you appreciate art anymore than the way painting classes can't make you an artist. They give you tools and mental models to look at art and make connections which have been handed down over centuries of thought.
wait I was supposed to *psychoanalyze* Starry Night???
I don't think I ever bothered to feel Van Gogh's starry night. Ive seen it plenty of times, but Its somewhat rare for me to try to look at a painting on a screen like I do at paintings in real life.
It's a crisp breeze, on a chilly night, hills fluttering like rolls in cloth.
with the milky way above, shimmering as a stream running over a bed of gems.
it feels so cold, I want to go in, to sleep. but I cant stop looking
just a few more minutes, then i'll go, but not yet. not yet.
just a few more minutes.
I love how you've articulated that experience of The Starry Night. That feeling of wanting to immerse yourself in the painting, holding onto the moment just a little longer, captures exactly what Sontag was talking about-allowing art to affect us without rushing to explain or intellectualize it.
Thank you for sharing this-it's a perfect example of what Sontag’s “erotics of art” is all about!
I disagree wholeheartedly. There is a lot of art out there with absolutely no meaning and this is where I place the value of your idea. On basic art that is just people creating things without purpose. But the art in media, in museums, in our societal sphere, those artforms are absolutely defined, not just in liberal interpretations, but from essays and letters from the artists or their masters. Then theres the technicality of the art. Anyone can pick up a brush and pencil, but there are actual techniques on display and viewers should absolutely look at those lines and strokes and color mixing and think or be told something.
On top of that, most people are not creative. Most people do not understand the techniques that were used to produce the art. Most people couldnt imply a meaning if you were hitting them over the head with it. So the guides are for people like that. They are there for people who just look at it and dont really see anything other than someone's "poor" interpretation of flowers. This is also why everyday people are so impressed with photorealism. It just looks so hard to do. I mean compare the crayola mess that is van gogh to davinci or dali. Davinci shows off his ability to get depth and shape through basic techniques with an abaility to get detailed and Dali's basic objects in illogical positions makes people think when they see it. But van gogh...people see that and can't understand why it is a famous painting when their toddler did something similar 3 days ago. They arent aware of the romantic period or how it shifted to impressionism and why van gogh is regarded as a master of his craft and how he even coined his own art style. You arent going to learn that outside of college or a museum. I think guides are important for people. It creates a foundation for learning more, but it also just creates a foundation.
Thank you for sharing such a detailed perspective! I agree that for many people, guides and background information can be really helpful in appreciating the techniques or historical context of art. Sontag wasn’t dismissing this entirely-she just suggested that sometimes, over-explaining can interfere with the sensory experience of art itself. There’s definitely room for both approaches: appreciating technique and history while also allowing space for an emotional or instinctive reaction.
The whole premise dismisses meaning by randomly applying to it lower value and continues from there.
This is undetermined and lowering the importance of meaning for the sake of presenting your point as valid is dishonest and cowardly
Thank you for your comment! I understand where you're coming from. The goal of the video isn't to dismiss meaning entirely. The purpose is to explore Susan Sontag’s argument that we've become overly focused on interpreting meaning in art, often at the expense of experiencing it emotionally or sensually. Sontag’s call for an “erotics of art” suggests that sometimes we intellectualize art too much. This can lead to missing out on its more immediate, visceral impact.
Meaning does have value, but there’s more than one way to engage with art-sometimes through thought, and sometimes through pure experience. Thanks again for sharing your perspective!
Good topic, good information. Your tattoos detract from the presentation.
I don't think that you can dissect art. The intellectual and emotional aspects of a work of art cannot be separated and you can't figure out in some way what makes a good work of art in an intellectual manner which would lead to developing a formula for making good art which is impossible. AI can make stuff like that and when you look at it it's really ugly to me even though our culture accepts a lot of ugly things as if it were beautiful. Renoir said that perfection is the enemy of art and I think so too.
I love how you highlight the inseparability of the intellectual and emotional aspects of art-it's true that dissecting art into a formula misses the point. Art isn’t just about ticking technical boxes, and that’s where AI-generated works fall short-they might mimic technique, but they lack the soul.
No,no and no ❕
I can chew gum and walk at the same time.
Besides that, this is really preachy; Don't tell me how to appreciate art❕
Thanks for the feedback! I definitely didn't mean to come across as preachy or imply there's only one way to appreciate art. You're right-people can absolutely engage with art in multiple ways at once, whether it's feeling, thinking, or both at the same time. Sontag’s idea was just one approach to help balance the tendency to overanalyze, but it’s not meant to suggest that’s the only valid way to experience art.
Everyone’s connection to art is personal, and how we engage with it should be as unique as our tastes. I appreciate you calling that out, and I’m glad the discussion prompted some good conversation!
Well, if it's van Gogh there's at least enough to have thoughts lke these. But if yu're in front of a pile of trash (or other modern art), what's to do?
move on fast
I get where you’re coming from! Some modern art can feel harder to engage with, especially when it seems like it’s pushing boundaries just for the sake of it. But Sontag’s perspective can actually help here too. Instead of asking, “What does this mean?” with a pile of trash or something less traditional, maybe it’s about asking, “How does this make me feel?” or “What kind of reaction is this trying to provoke?” Even something as unconventional as modern installations might evoke surprise, frustration, or curiosity. Sometimes, the art is the experience or the thought it forces you to confront, rather than a pretty picture to look at.
You might not get the same kind of emotional connection as you would with a van Gogh, but modern art often asks you to feel uncomfortable or to question what art even is. It doesn’t always hit the mark, but sometimes that visceral reaction is exactly the point.
@DrElanK I do like your take. I guess I'm a bit frustrated because there is nothing but modern art in my area, and every time I try, all I get is confusion. At best, I can see the energy, but it's just all so lacking in the artful handiwork of it all, and it's so hard to look past that.
Dive in.
when the narrator of the perception of art sits in a stupid room, against the backdrop of a stupid tree and a stupid picture behind, in a stupid T-shirt with a stupid hairstyle and a stupid tattoo, how will it be perceived through calls for form and eroticism?))