susan sontag: against interpretation essay

- 'Content'-based analysis of art stems from early mimetic art theories which proposed that art is merely an imitation of reality (Plato). This was later refuted by Aristotle who argued for art as catharsis. However, this continued the consideration of art as something that is always figurative, always representing something (content) which had to be explained. Regarding art has since then become a matter of identifying form vs content in that rather than indulging in how a piece of work is received (eg how it made the viewer feel etc) the emphasis is on what it means and how the piece of work is/can be justified. The 'content' whatever it may be is assumed as the work of art and is independent from the form.

- Sontag argues that hermeneutics, the theory of interpretation, has it's roots in "the culture of late classical antiquity". Since the rise of scientific development, ancient texts such as myths could no longer be read literally and she says that people began to read those texts allegorically, interpreting them, (un?)consciously altering the text by uncovering 'hidden meanings' which can be deemed more relevant in a modern scenario - these texts have become metaphors in a way. Is she equating allegory with interpretation? She argues that historically, interpretation of a text which can no longer be read clearly is the desire to find a different meaning than it would appear to have. "Interpretation thus presupposes a discrepancy between the clear meaning of the text and the demands of (later) readers. It seeks to resolve that discrepancy." 

- Sontag isn't against interpretation as a whole but rather a more specific type of interpretation where critics attempt to 'translate' the artwork using a set of 'rules', a code, explain what it 'really' means and sometimes transforming it into something else entirely. I too feel that the constant need of critics to assume that the artwork's content is a metaphor for something else and to continuously be looking for meanings and symbols is really tiresome and not always necessary. She notes that "reducing the work of art to its content and then interpreting that tames the work of art, making it manageable, comfortable." Isn't that slightly depressing? To constantly assign allegorical meaning to art rather than taking them for what they are one can miss feelings and emotions and immediate extra sensory simulations a piece of art arouses. 

*Note, to better understand Sontag's 'anti-interpretation' stance, acknowledge that this essay was written in the 60s where at the time conceptual art was a new art movement which often came with necessary explanations and interpretations. Hence why she praises the likes of abstract art, pop-art, modern French poetry and cinema (in part 7 of the essay) as devices which consciously rejects and discourages interpretation.

"What kind of criticism, of commentary on the arts, is desirable today?" 

Rather than critics impulsively/habitually interpreting works of art and separating content from form, Sontag encourages criticism predicated on the observation on an artwork's appearance rather than it's 'content': "valuable would be acts of criticism which would supply a really accurate, sharp, loving description of the work of art." She calls for 'transparence'; "experiencing the luminousness of the thing in itself, of things being what they are."

- I particularly love part 9 of this essay and how she emphasises the importance of the "sensory experience" of a work of art. "Our task is to cut back content so that we can see the thing at all." She highlights that the purpose of criticism is to enhance our encounter of the work rather than hindering our experiences of it through constant explanations of what it means.

- On the other hand, I am not totally against metaphorical interpretation. While it is true that not all artworks are allegoric, some were created with authorial intention of portraying deeper meanings behind certain aspects of the work which are systematically built into the surface or the form of the work. In which case critical interpretation and description of the work's appearance in this manner is what Sontag encourages in the first place. That is different from a critic approaching artwork with a priori assumption that they are allegorical as it places disparate works of art into a grid - or through sets of rules - which attempts to incorrectly decode it.

"In place of a hermeneutics, we need an erotics of art."