Art as a Rorschach Test
Art doesn't change. Whether a painting, or a book, a movie, or even a piece of music, once created, it is finished, and yet, that is when its journey begins.
However, the interpretation of the artwork, any type of artwork, does change. Sometimes it changes in miraculous ways.
Different people have different perceptions depending on their own filters, culture, surroundings, levels of understanding, experiences in life.
There are also changes from generation to generation.
Even the same person's perception will change, provided they themselves have changed over time, allowing them to experience a book, a movie, a painting, etc. completely differently than they have before.
What is art then? Is it no more than a kind of Rorschach test?
What are your thoughts?
Art as a Rorschach test? Never thought of it, but it is very very spot on!
Art lies in the "rules" some "intellectual cliques" set (I am referring to what is considered an all time classic piece of art).
But it also lies in the eye of the beholder. Everyone filters the stimuli from their environment through their experiences, their mood, their knowledge and education. For example: I was at the beach today, I found a little pond with frogs nearby, I took photos of creatures others find disgusting, but I kept having a smile of satisfaction on my face the whole time. For me, these little guys were a piece of art and I used them to make my art. See? Everything is so fluid and subjective (the way I see it).
The example with the frog pond is perfect. For instance, anything that is commonly perceived as disgusting or commonly feared, etc. will, when interpreting something, like a piece of art, be considered through its common interpretation (unless the creator's associations are known, and cared for or considered).
The same mix up is also made when interpreting dreams. Looking at general symbolism, instead of one's own.
The more someone is a classic representative of the species, the more clearly even their individual symbolism will be perceived by the interpreters.
This, of course, also presents a unique challenge.
Interesting thought about the Rorschach test and art. I wouldn’t come to that idea, but as you mention it, I see the connection.
Before coming to the beholder, any art is in the heart or mind of an artist, the idea that will get a form. A sculptor transforms stone into a sculpture, a painter an empty canvas into a painting, a musician empty note lines into music. That is the path of an idea, continuing from the artist to the eye, ear, heart and mind of the beholder. Personally, I like beauty in so many different forms. But, what I consider art is that what awakens my heart and my mind so that I, myself, become a part of the initial journey of the artist’s idea. This way the process of creation stays alive. The synergism of the artist and the beholder gives power to every artwork to become a life changing experience, and that is what art should be. Art changes the beholder, but the experience of the beholder, at least sometimes, also influences the artist. It is a kind of hermetic circle with a deep mutual meaning.
I love it when that happens.
For me, personally ( and I think ART is really personal intrepretation) it is Story.
When I view works, whether online, in gallery or museum, I of course carry with my own cultural heritage and preconceptions of Life but these, in a way, our my tools to view art. And with these tools I make stories. I cannot help it. I love the intricacies in paintings filled with symbolism and many characters, but can also spend a good amount of time on say Monet's haystacks or waterlilies and cannot help but dream up underwater fairies or villages collected around the scenes.
Even were I to view dark abstract expressionism like Rothko , there'd be some drama that would eventually appear in my minds eye.
So, for me, art is Story and in most cases joyous, but also sometimes sad, much like life and honestly without the yin to the yang it'd be hard to appreciate many things.
Now, as to what is Art in the broad sense of the word, I'd say it can be a mirror of our times and political socio-economic climate, but not always. I guess I'd never really want to define Art on the broader spectrum as I'd not like to be presumptuous to assume what it Should be to a vast world.
Not a very concise answer, but that's my 2 cents. I do believe, with all my heart, that Art is important to us all, of that I can be sure.
An intriguing set of questions. I would say that, at its core, Art in all its forms begins as an expression of the lives we lead and times in which we live. The power of Art is that it speaks to each person as they need it to.
That inkblot looks like two Chihuahuas dancing with a a frog. LOL
I can't think of anything cerebral to say - but about Rohrschach, you may know this already:
A psychiatrist shows a patient Rohrschach images and asks what he sees - and each time the patient says "a woman's private parts". After this went on for a while the psychiatrist gives up and says: "it is quite obvious that you have a very sick and depraved mind". Says the patient: "I have a sick mind? It is you that is showing me all these dirty pictures!"
Same with art ..........
I did indeed know that one, but great that you remembered it now, and posted it here, thanks!
Really agreed with your thoughts ....i have just made my first portrait on steemit.you can check it on my posts.Thank you and have a nice day