“Everyone is of course free to interpret the work in his own way. I think seeing a picture is one thing and interpreting it is another.”

“One of the crucial problems in art is the business of “meaning it”. If you are a painter, meaning the paintings you make; if you are an observer, meaning what you see.”

Jasper Johns

“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.”

“As soon as we start putting our thoughts into words and sentences everything gets distorted, language is just no damn good—I use it because I have to, but I don’t put any trust in it. We never understand each other.”

Marcel Duchamp

“What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.”

“What can be shown cannot be said.”

Ludwig Wittgenstein

The perennial question in art… “What does it mean?” Well, that’s the polite version. For a large section of the general public, often egged on by a hostile media, it’s likely to be preceded by “Is this supposed to be art?” and put, shall we say, a little more forcefully, as in “What the fuck is this supposed to be about?” (note the “supposed” indicating a suspicion that most likely “this” is about very little, if anything, at all…) But it’s not just the public, the hoi polloi, who are suspicious about the question of meaning in art. Artists and philosophers often are too (see quotes above). Art theorists tend to sidestep the problem by approaching the issue more obliquely and directing their enquiries towards questions of how art can mean. Usually these enquiries are expressed via, for many people, near indecipherable “artspeak” and most often using terms appropriated from the study of figurative language (or figures of speech), as used in literature or rhetoric. Terms like “tropes” (see here) and metaphor, metonymy, synecdoche etc. Speaking personally I have always been fascinated by all this stuff but I know most people glaze over at the mere thought of it all. In this article, therefore, I shall attempt to approach these issues by discussing them as they apply to a specific piece. A piece of art (?) I can maybe claim at least some slight empathy with: that is my own, shown above. Hopefully the discussion will be devoid of “artspeak” as much as is possible.

The artist Willem De Kooning once said when discussing “content” in art, “Content, if you want to say, is a glimpse of something, an encounter, you know, like a flash. It’s very tiny – very tiny, content.” Well, maybe… but if that’s true we encounter here our first problem concerning the interpretation of meaning in a work of art: absent knowledge about, say, the biographical details of the artist and/or an extensive knowledge of the artist’s oeuvre or without having read the extant literature on their work (should any exist that is) the viewer has little to go on apart from the content of a specific piece. I for one have always been aware that if and when a particular artwork of mine finally grows up enough to be set adrift in the world it is highly unlikely it will do so with the benefit of being accompanied by a written explanation neatly explaining in detail just what the hell it’s supposed to be about. Equally unlikely too that the viewer will know me from Adam. Which is why I am hereby bestowing on you the dubious advantage of the following explication…

As is likely true of any artwork, with the piece above there are two kinds of meaning available (intended meaning that is, an important qualification…): strictly personal meaning, presumably available only to myself or (at most) somebody who knows me (extremely) well and (theoretically, at least) publicly available meaning. Added to the first, of course, should also be the qualification “intended meaning that I am aware of”. As for the “publicly available” meaning it may be (and is here) necessary for a viewer to be aware of the allusions, references, “quotations” and tropes (sorry about that…) used in the image. In this case that would require a fairly extensive knowledge of the work of the American artist, Jasper Johns, whose “crosshatch” series of works I have stated before have been the source of much of the inspiration behind this current series of images. So now for the image itself…

As with most visual art the first aspect that will strike most viewers is the content; here a large number of fairly uniform cigarette butts arranged in a pattern which may or not be recognised as referencing crosshatch patterns often used in drawing/etching and painting to indicate tonal values. Once again to be able to make any connection at all to Jasper Johns the viewer would need to know of the existence of the artist’s own “crosshatch” pieces. Even so any connection may still by no means seem certain. Even were a connection to be realised, in Johns’s case the marks which make up the pattern consist of brush/pencil strokes of varying tonal and/or colour values, media etc. and in any case by no means uniform but still, one could say, as purely “marks” essentially objective. In my image, however, the elements that make up the pattern, being photographic, are obviously “of” something. They are subjective in other words and the subject matter is such as to inevitably bring with it a range of its own connotations, associations etc. It may even provoke an “emotional” response, such as, conceivably, disgust. In any case why these objects? It could be, of course, that as objects they just seemed ideal for making the desired pattern. On the other hand…

The overall title of this series of images is “Handmade” and would suggest that the cigarette butts in the image were indeed hand rolled and “consumed” by me (they were) which would confirm that I myself smoke which, God knows, especially these days brings with it a whole cart load of baggage. So, do I have a personal point to make here? Well, not particularly (consciously that is…) but who knows? I could go on but anyway enough for now about the basic content. Looking again at the image and comparing it to the rest in the series there are obviously two new elements that have been introduced; the cross or “X” and the word “KNOW”. A cross motif is one much used by Johns in the “crosshatch” series (and other pieces) and enough used to constitute a kind of “signature” but one of highly personal (and largely uncertain) significance to the artist. So, it may merely be used here as a Johnsian quote. Once again a certain pre-knowledge of the artist’s work would be required to “get” the quote. A sidenote… contrary to appearances the cross mark here is neither hand drawn nor digitally but is, in fact, an upper case “X” taken from a handwriting font called DuDuchamp. The work and artistic philosophy of Marcel Duchamp has been a lifelong influence on Johns. It’s a small point that will certainly go unnoticed by almost all viewers but small things like that amuse me. Still for those who don’t make the Johns connection (certainly an overwhelming majority) there are still several possible meanings that could be attached to the cross motif; the most obvious, considering the subject matter, a “crossing out” or denial of the habit of smoking itself. I am sure, too, there are many other connotations available to an individual viewer…

The word “KNOW” is obviously easily “read” and equally obviously I guess one possible meaning would be clear to any viewer that “gets” the Johnsian connections and realises that by no means will everybody (many?) recognise or “know” about them. But the word itself also contains the word “NO” and once again a few people may well know that Johns himself has made several pieces with that title containing the word prominently and centrally placed as in my image. Still, Johnsian associations apart, and considering the subject matter again, the “KNOW” could be an exhortation to the viewer (or myself!) to realise the dire consequences of smoking and too, if noticed, the “NO” (especially coupled with the cross motif) could be an admonition to quit the habit. Once again, I could go on but you will no doubt be relieved to know I shall resist the temptation.

And the point of all this? Well, if nothing else it should illustrate the range of possible meanings available to a viewer of any piece of artwork (and I am sure I have merely scratched the surface here). It may, too, indicate that an artist’s intent (if indeed known) may not have primacy, or any significance at all, when it comes to an individual viewer’s interpretation. This is not to say there should be no intent nor that an artist should not be required to articulate his/her intent, far from it (“My art speaks for itself” being one of the more puerile and meaningless notions abroad and I hope this article may help to illustrate why…), but no artist can ever fully “own” the meaning of their work and nor should they. As to an artist’s personal intent, it is by no means certain that they themselves fully understand the decisions they may make concerning their work. Even their own detailed explanations may be, shall we say, “unreliable”. Artists lie (“Everybody lies…” – Dr. Gregory House) sometimes deliberately, sometimes inadvertently. It is just this uncertainty that is part of the richness of art. You may want to remember that the next time you glance at a stream of screen images and skip by each one with a swift “like/don’t like” judgement and congratulate yourself that you are such a connaisseur…

Relating directly to today’s post I have selected as a musical piece Shostakovich’s Fifth Symphony. It is a piece that I find, at turns, tender and violent, thrilling and heartbreaking. Considering it’s pivotal position in the composer’s career (you can read more here) many have wondered exactly what it’s about and there has always been the suspicion that there are many “hidden” aspects of the piece as it relates to the composer’s intentions. Even knowing nothing of all this it should be obvious to any listener that the piece is about “big issues” but without a background understanding the real significance of these issues would likely not be at all apparent. This is, at one and the same time, both the curse and the endless fascination of music in particular but, too, art in general. The composer himself spoke about the piece from time to time at some length but equally in an often contradictory fashion. He could have been lying (see above). In fact it would be amazing if he had not lied to some extent considering the tensions, fear and pressure of living in Soviet Russia under the rule of Stalin. Does it matter? Obviously not knowing such biographical and other details should be no barrier to anybody enjoying the piece… just listen, its merits are pretty self evident. It may, however, enhance your enjoyment and that’s all one can say really…

Dmitri Shostakovich, Symphony No.5, BBC Symphony Orchestra, Valery Gergiev