Analyzing Art.

In today's class, we discussed the possibility of an artwork's artistic value being taken away by over-analysis. Does analyzing a work of art take away from it's artistic value, or does it make the viewer appreciate the piece of art even more? It depends on the individual. In class, we went over the example of Moby Dick - the white whale itself is a symbol for nature and the things that are out of human control. After the analysis of the text itself, one may gain a deeper appreciation for the novel instead of merely seeing it as a surface-level tale of a man and his whale. However, if one over-analyzes a piece of art, they may focus in on one particular element and lose sight of the artistic merit of the piece entirely. In many of my literature classes that I've taken since high school, I've noticed that with most of the books that I've read, I have over-analyzed them to the point where I began to lose interest in the book itself because of the tedious process of analysis.

We also discussed today how the abstractions of the piece of artwork is directly proportional to the need for narration from the artist of his or her original intent. The more abstract the piece appears, the more there is a need for commentary from the artist - it seems more and more often, with the emergence of more modern art, there is a much-needed basis for interpretation whereas the art itself can no longer stand alone. However, does this merely mean that we're over-analyzing the piece itself and we're ignoring the intent of the emotional expression of the piece? Take Jackson Pollack for example - his splatter paintings may seem abstract and meaningless, but surely there is an emotional intent behind his work. Does he need to narrate the symbolism behind his pieces? Or can his art stand on it's own?

My question for the class is this: "Do you believe that modern art is becoming more and more abstract, and therefore harder to interpret, or are art-viewers just getting lazier at piecing together the meaning behind a painting?"

Response #7.

In Katherine's blog, she asked the question, "What qualities does a work need to have in order to impact (change/alter) the emotion of the viewer?"

I know for myself whenever I view a piece of artwork that changes me emotionally, most of the time it is because there is something within the piece that I can relate to and it strikes me on a personal level. Music, for example, has always been an art work that I've been able to relate to and it changes me emotions so boldly. Some of my most favorite and intimate songs have been about topics that were close to heart with me, and therefore it changes my emotions whenever I hear it. Music that doesn't have lyrics too can also alter my moods because the music itself moves me, and I can feel within the musician the passion pouring through their fingers as they create that music. When I listen to a piece of music and I can tell that the musician is passionate about what he or she does through the music itself, it usually moves me to such a point where my emotions are at their peak and I'm able to feel a mixture of happiness, sorrow, fragility, chaos, and stillness all at the same time. So as for qualities that a work needs, I think it definitely varies with each individual because we all have different life stories that are applicable to the art that we subject ourselves to.

My question is, "Do you find yourself moved the most when viewing artwork or listening to music that reflects your thoughts and feelings? Or is it something completely unrelated to how you feel that tends to move you the most?"