Critical Analysis of Evisceration of a Roebuck with a Portrait of a Married Couple - Essay Example

Critical Analysis of Evisceration of a Roebuck with a Portrait of a Married Couple Interpretation of work of art, literature, songs, and films among other works is not something new, in fact; it is so rampant in the American society with several critics dedicating their professions, time and effort just to interpret the works of others. Interpretation disintegrates the work of art into several sections of its contents in order to determine its meaning. This may be a welcome move because it helps in understanding better the work of art, as well as the artists’ message to the audience, but interpretation also does not recognize the value of the artwork or give it less vale than it deserves. In most cases, interpretation reveals unconscious or conscious dissatisfaction with the work of art, and a wish or suggestion to replace it with something else deemed better. As Susan Sontag puts it, “Interpretation, based on the highly dubious theory that a work of art is composed of items of content, violates art. It makes art into an article for use, for the arrangement into a mental scheme of categories” (222). This indicates that the interpretation do more harm to the wok o art than it does well. Interpretation focus on the content, and fails to acknowledge the form of the artwork, which perhaps is the most important component of the work to the artist. Indeed, interpretation is fundamentally harmful process that tames the work of art by reducing it to its contents. In most case, art makes us nervous, anxious and even curious because of the mysterious an imaginary nature. Therefore, in an attempt to counter these effects, critics use interpretation to reduce the work of art into its contents, and make it more comfortable and manageable to the audience. This helps the audience to understand better the subject matter of the art, but in the process the work of art loses its value because of the violation of its contents. Furthermore, the interpreters tend to suggest that they are looking for a work of art that is unified, clean with a direct address, and rapid momentum. However, a work that achieves these qualities would cease to be a work of art. As a result, the interpretation is only harmful to the work of art. Nevertheless, this does not mean that there should be absolutely no criticism directed to the works of art as works of art are not ineffable. However, the kind of criticism directed to the work of art should serve the work of art well, and not sabotage it. For instance, the interpretation should focus more on the form through a descriptive vocabulary, instead of focusing too much on content and prescriptive vocabulary. This would serve to balance the criticism with preserving the value of the work of art. Currently trend reveals that artists are going to the direction of creating abstract works of art rather than the original art with content. This is in a bid to avoid interpretation of their works that serve to violate instead of value the works. Modern art bears no content meaning that there cannot be interpretation (Gatto et al. 42). To make matters worse, these art loose the value that art works holds in the society by becoming a parody, or decorative; thus, a high possibility of becoming non-art. In this case, we would have a society with no art, and since art serves an important part of the society, such society would become valueless. As a result, interpretation should focus on subjective matters such as form so as to preserve the original art works, and discourage abstract art that may lead to lose the societal value. The Greeks, particularly Plato, proposed the theory that art is mimesis, that is; it is a mimic of reality. With this theory, Plato tended to suggest that art has a dubious value since he considered objects mimetic themselves. This means that according to Plato, a painting would be an imitation of an imitation. Therefore, the interpretation of content of art that renders art dubious and valueless seemed to have originated from he greeks. Even Aristotle agreed with Plato on the fact that art was merely a mimesis of reality, which tends to propose that art is neither true in its strict sense, nor useful (Sontag 223). However, Aristotle disagrees with Plato that art is not useful because to him art is a form of therapy. According to Aristotle, art purges and stirs dangerous emotions. This mimetic theory identifies with the assumption that art is figurative, but those who propose for mimetic theory need not to recognize abstract and decorative art. This fallacy that renders art a realism should either be modified, or completely scrapped in order to serve the best interest of art. This theory developed by the Greeks provides the basis for the western consciousness, and unconsciousness of reflection on art works. Thus, the art becomes problematic, as well as in need of defense from harmful interpretation. This defense leads to separation of form from content, and consequently, the well-intentioned approach makes form become unnecessary, and content essential. Thus content always comes fast in interpretation of art because o he persistence of the mimetic theory developed by the Greeks. Nevertheless, this also shows that there are two sides to interpretation. Therefore, critics have the choice of either interpreting the art with the use of content, or the use of form, but mostly they focus on content, which does not give art any justice. For instance, Evisceration of a Roebuck with a Portrait of a Married Couple by Frans Snyders is an example of painting that interpreters focus more on the content the on the form. Interpreting such art would see it placed in social, political and even cultural contents to draw the meaning. In addition, interpretation with respect to the mimesis theory would see a critic of the author’s background, and experience, which are then connected with the content of the artwork. For example, this is a painting that was done before the 18th century during the baroque period. Therefore, in interpreting this work, critic would focus on the events that took place in place, during this period, and allegedly influenced the painting without giving much focus to the subjective interpretation. Analyzing this art in the context of the baroque period, the characteristics that are evident include lines, light, naturalism and realism, which were the major components of art in the baroque period. For instance, the art uses strong contrast of shadow and light in order to enhance the dramatic effect of the painting. In addition, the uses of naturalism and realism augments the details of a typical daily life. Therefore, interpretation of this art shows that it mimics the typical daily life of a family in a baroque period setting. It also reveals the economic activities, and thus the social setting behind this art, for example; this comes from the fruits and the dead animals (Buci-Glucksmann 54). Furthermore, the baroque historical period of art bears the characteristic of development of movement in painting whereby the subjects would be in uncontrolled poses characterized by twisting torsos. Another focus that interpretation of his art work would focus on is the social setting of the author’s background. The author visited Italy, which was at the pick of art revolution, and also worked in Milan. In addition, the author specialized in painting fruits, flowers, as well as still life as his subjects, and later turned into painting animals. As one of the earliest specialists in animal painting, interpreters would use this to mean that he had some sought of experience with animals that influenced his work (Martin 2). The author also created rich and varied compositions, with vigorous and correct objects exhibiting different textures of skins and furs. In short, the author was excellent in this department, but despite this, interpreters would use the features as a loop hole to critics his work and suggest where the author did not meet interpretive standards. Suppose the interpretation of Evisceration of a Roebuck with a Portrait of a Married Couple focused on form, it would look at the dimensionality of the art, positive/negative, geometry, and volume/mass/plane (Gatto et al 45). This would give an interpretation that preserves the value of the art. Another approach that could be used to critic this work is to supply valuable and accurate information on the appearance of the artwork, as well loving description of the art. Moreover, the interpretation can take the form of transparency, which is experiencing the luminousness of the piece of art. Criticism or art piece requires a sensory experience that identifies the values associated with the piece. However, the modern interpretation takes this for granted and ends up harming the art instead of enhancing its value. In conclusion, modern interpretation of art is fundamentally harmful process that tames the work of art by reducing it to its contents. Therefore, a beneficial interpretation requires the use of elements of the form to critic the artwork. This would ensure the preservation of the value of the piece, and acknowledgment of ts important function in the society. Works Cited Buci-Glucksmann, Christine. Baroque Reason: The Aesthetics of Modernity. Sage, 1994. Print. Gatto. Exploring Visual Design: The Elements and Principles. Worcester: Davis Publications, Inc., 2000. Martin, Gregory. The Flemish School, 1600–1900. National Gallery Catalogues. London: National Gallery, 1970. Print. Sontag, Susan. “Against Interpretation,”1964, in Art History and its Methods: A Critical Anthology. London: Phaidon, 1995. Print. Read More