Intent vs. Content

Module 2

When I look at any work of art, I am trying to raise a few questions before trying to make a judgement of this work: what this work might be about, what this work tries to tell me, and whether the artist is full of the best intentions towards himself and the whole world while making this work. As an artist myself, I try to find good intentions in the work, even if it frightens me at first. In fact, the feelings of disgust or hostility are experienced by most people in a much stronger level than the feelings of joy and happiness. I remind myself that the presence of these appearing feelings could be too the intention of the artist, not necessarily a bad one.

But what happens when the spectator creates entirely unexpected content for a work? Marcel Duchamp once said:

“The creative act is not performed by the artist alone; the spectator brings the work in contact with the external world by deciphering and interpreting its inner qualifications and thus adds his contribution to the creative act.”

In other words, Duchamp’s vision of art is based upon the direct dialogue between the artwork and the viewer. Obviously, a spectator may interpret the work not the way the artist intended. Also, taste of a spectator plays a big role because taste gives a feeling, and not a sense of aesthetic emotion. When a spectator reacts to a work unexpectedly, perhaps the artist him/herself looks at his/her work from a different point of view. An artist can put a ton of meaning into the work, but a spectator brings another ton, which gives this work even extra meaning. I believe that a spectator communicates his/her own experience through interpretation of the work, whereas this might be a valuable knowledge for the artist, and vice versa.

Other question is whether the artist should inform the spectator of his/her intention beforehand or not. I truly believe that he/she is not obliged by doing so. The first purpose of the artist is to create a work but not in order to explain what he/she means. He/she might add visual or textual clues by providing extra details or writing an artist statement. But the work itself does not need an explanation of the artist’s intent. Otherwise, we would have to read a great deal of material on each artist before even considering to visit a gallery or museum. I feel that if the art work affected a spectator in some way, it should be his/her aspiration to make a research on the artist and investigate more about him/her.

Beyond doubt, knowledge of an artist’s intent is extremely helpful and valuable while making a judgement about his/her work. For example, when I saw the giant spider in front of National Gallery of Canada in Ottawa a few years ago, I did not know it was made by Louise Bourgeois. I carefully observed the giant statue without knowing what it actually represented. The space created by the spider’s legs made me want to go inside of this space – was it an intuition reflecting the sense of protection the spider creates, wasn’t it? Anyways, now I learned about Louise Bourgeois’ autobiography, and I also learned that this spider was a symbol of Louise Bourgeois’ mother, who was loved by her as much as imprisoned in the memories of the artist’s problematic childhood (Barrett 87). The spider represents immense protection that was always by Louise’s side before the loss of her mother. This knowledge not only helps me to make a clear judgement of this work, but also makes me crave for more knowledge of her work and makes me highly appreciate it.