National Art Education Association

Principles for Interpreting Art

Author(s): Terry Barrett
Reviewed work(s):
Source: Art Education, Vol. 47, No. 5, Interpretation (Sep., 1994), pp. 8-13
Published by: National Art Education Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3193496 .
Accessed: 18/08/2012 09:40

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

National Art Education Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Art
Education.

http://www.jstor.org
SPECIAL

PRINCIPLES
FOR

Inte
eaching interpretation within art criticism is probably the most difficult aspect of teach-
ing criticism because interpretation is perhaps the least understood and most often con-
fused of critical activities. Interpretationis also the most importantaspect of criticismbecause
a responsibleinterpretationnecessarilyincludes description,andbecause a thoroughinterpreta-
tion of a work of art,which results in an understandingof that art,rendersjudgmentmuch easier
and perhapssuperfluous.Judgmentof a work of artwithoutinterpretation,however,is both irre-
sponsive and irresponsible.
This articleis writtento guide artteachers in engaging their studentsin interpretivedialogue
aboutworks of artand to providecriteriafor assessing their interpretationsof art. The following
principlesof interpretationderivefromthe writingsof aestheticians,artcritics,arteducators,and
the author'sexperience in writingcriticismand teachingothers to interpretart. These principles
are not exclusive of other possible principles;rather,they forma relativelycomprehensive,con-
plementary,anduseful set of principlesfor guiding and assessing interpretivediscussions.
Artworks have "aboutness" (Danto, 1981) and demand interpretation. This is the fun-
damentalprincipleidentifiedby aestheticians(e.g., Danto, 1981,Goodman,1976) andreadily
acceptedby critics (e.g., Alloway,1975;Kuspitin VanProyen,1991). It is sometimes disputed,
however,by artists,an occasionalartprofessor,and more frequentlyartstudentsinclinedto hold
that "artspeaks for itself,"or "youcan'ttalkaboutart."Whetherartseems confoundingor readily
understandable,it has potentialfor provokingand sustaininginterestinginterpretations.A work
of artis an expressive objectmade by a person, andtherefore,unlikea tree, a rock, or other mere
things, it is alwaysaboutsomething;thus, unliketrees or rocks, artworkscallfor interpretations.
Responsible interpretations present the artwork in its best rather than in its weakest
light. This principleis in the spiritof fairplay,generosity of spirit,and respect of artists.
Interpretations are arguments. Intelligentcritics'interpretiveargumentsentailpremises
which lead to conclusionsbased on reason and evidence. Fortheir arguments,criticsdrawevi-
dence from a varietyof sources: whatthey see in the artwork,whatthey know aboutthe artist's
otherwork,and their knowledge of the times in which the workwas made andto which it might
refer. Because good criticsare generallypersuasiveandwritein an engaging literarymanner,
their interpretationsrarelyrevealthemselves as logicalargumentsbased on premises thatresult
in a conclusion. Criticismusuallyneeds to be readcarefullyto determinea critic'sinterpretations
of art.
Interpretations are persuasive. Criticismis persuasiverhetoric;thatis, the criticwouldlike
the readerto see a work of artthe way the criticsees it. A critictries to engage the readerin a simi-

BY TERRY BARRETT

ART EDUCATION / SEPTEMBER 1994

Art
larperceptionand understandingso
that eventuallythe readerwillbe likely
to think,'"Yes,I see whatyou mean",
'Yes, I now see it the wayyou see it."
Interpretationsshould be analyzedas
argumentsto see if they are persuasive
by the reasons they offeras well as by
their colorfulterms and carefully
wroughtphrases.
Some interpretations are better
than others. This principledefends
againstoften heard objectionsby those
not knowledgeableaboutcriticism-
'That'sjust your interpretation"-by
which they usuallymean thatno one
interpretationis betterthan any other,
and further,thatno interpretationis
more certainthan any other. This is a
form of intellectualrelativismthatis
somehow toleratedmore in the arts
than in the humanitiesand sciences. understanding.A single, comprehen- overlookedor has not mentioned. One
This principle,on the contrary,holds sive but exhaustiveinterpretationis not criticpresents an interpretationthat
thatall interpretationsare not equal, a goal of interpretation.Since an art- contributesto anothercritic'sprevious
that some interpretationsare better work may generate a varietyof plausi- interpretation.These enrich our under-
argued,better groundedin evidence, ble interpretations,interpretationsmay standingof a work of art. They also
and thereforemore reasonable,more compete, encouragingthe readerto enrich our appreciationof the respon-
persuasive,and more readilyaccept- choose among them, especiallyif inter- siveness of humanbeings.
able. pretationsof the same work of artare Althoughthis principleallowsfor
No single interpretation is contradictory. and encourages a varietyof interpreta-
exhaustive of the meaning of an art- This principleencourages a diversi- tions of a work of art,it may not be logi-
work and there can be different, ty of interpretationsfroma numberof callypossible for one to hold all
competing, and contradictory inter- viewers and froma numberof pointsof interpretationsaboutthe same work of
pretations of the same artwork. Any view. It values an artworkas a rich artif those interpretationsare mutually
given artworkmay receive several dif- repositoryof expression thatallowsfor exclusive or contradictory.One could,
ferentinterpretations,each providing a richvarietyof response. Any one crit- however,sympatheticallyunderstand
subtle.nuancesor bold alternativesfor ic may note something that anotherhas several differentand contradictory

SEPTEMBER 1994 / ART ED UCATION

interpretationsif one understoodthe
beliefs andvalues of the critic.
Interpretations imply a world
view. We all move throughthe world
with a more or less articulatedset of
assumptionsaboutexistence, and it is
throughthese thatwe interpretevery-
thing, includingworks of art. Some
critics interpretarton the basis of less
articulatedtheories. Othershave more
finely articulatedand consistentworld
views, based on study of philosophy,
psychology, and other disciplines.
Through these they interpretworks of
art. They may operateon the basis of
psychoanalytictheory,for example,or
offerneo-Marxistcritiquesof allworks
of artthey encounter.
Sometimes the criticsmake their
basic assumptionsaboutartandlife
explicit;more often,however,they
leave them implicit. Once the critic's
worldview is identified,choices follow.
One can acceptthe worldview and the
interpretationthat it influences or reject
both the worldview and the interpreta-
tion, acceptthe worldview but disagree
ART EDUCATION/ SEPTEMBER1994
with how it is appliedto the artwork;or
rejectthe worldview but acceptthe
specificinterpretationit yields.
Good interpretations of art tell
more about the artwork than they
tell about the interpreter. Good
interpretationsmust clearlypertainto
the work of art. Criticscome to a work
of artwith a historyand a worldview
and these do, should,and must affect
how they see a workof art. All interpre-
tationsrevealthe critic,but the critic's
primarychallenge is to directthe read-
er to betterperceiveandunderstand
the artobjectin question. This princi-
ple guards againstinterpretationsthat
are too subjective,those thattell us
more aboutthe criticthanthe artthe
criticis interpreting.
If one cannotrelatethe critic'sinter-
pretationto the workof artthe criticis
discussing, the interpretationmaybe
too subjective. If it is, it will not be
enlighteningaboutthe object,andwill
Buchanan
Beverly ?1990 Shack South:
Inside
and
Out.Cedar,
pine,tine,cardboard
Courtesy
Steinbaum
Krauss NYC
Gallery, TheChrysler
Museum,
Norfolk, Photo
Virginia byScottWolff
not be valuableas an interpretationof
the artwork,and hence is not a good
interpretation.
Interpretations are not so much
absolutely right, but more or less
reasonable, convincing, enlighten-
ing, and informative (Hampshirein
Kennick,1975). This principleholds
thatthere is no one true interpretation
of an artwork,andthatgood interpreta-
tions are not so much "right"as they
are compelling,original,insightful,and
so forth.
Good interpretations have coher-
ence, correspondence, and inclu-
siveness. A good interpretation
shouldbe a coherentstatementin itself
andit should also correspondto the art-
work. Coherenceis an autonomous
andinternalcriterion. One couldjudge
whetheraninterpretation wascoherent
withoutseeingtheartwork; thatis, the
argumenteithermakessenseorit
doesn't.Correspondence is anexternal
criterionthataskswhethertheinter-
pretation fitsthe artwork.A coherent
interpretation maynotsufficiently cor-
respond to the work beinginterpreted.
Thisprinciplealsoprotectsagainst
interpretations whichtendtoward
unleashedspeculation, byaskingthe
interpreter to adheretowhatis actually
intheartwork.
Thedemandforinclusiveness
ensuresthataninterpretation accounts
forallthatis inanartwork.Ifaninter-
pretationomitsmentionofanaspectof
anartwork, thatinterpretation is sus-
pect. If the interpretation oneto
leads
believethatit hasthe capacityto
accountforthe omission,butthat
capacityhasforsomereasonnotbeen
used,theinterpretation is notasflawed
as whenaninterpretation cannot
accountforwhatithasignored.
Feelings are guides to interpreta-
tions. Theseprinciplesdonotsuggest
orimplythatthe critic'soranyviewer's
feelingsarenotimportant tounder-
standing art.A person'sabilityto
respond to a work ofartis emotionalas
wellas intellectual, fromthegutandthe
heartaswellas fromthehead.This
principlerejectsthe dichotomous dis-
tinctionbetweenthoughtandfeeling;
onthe contrary, it assertsthatthought
andfeelingareirrevocably intertwined.
To be successfullyinterpretive, howev-
er,thecriticmustarticulate feelingand
thoughtin suchawaythatreadersmay
sharethemandsee howtheyarerelat-
ed tothe artwork.
Itis interpretively riskyto arriveata
confidentinterpretation ofonepieceof
artwithoutknowledgeofanyothersby
theartist.To interpreta singlenew
pieceofartbyanunknownis verydiffi-
cult. Criticsusuallyhavethebenefitof
knowledgeof severalartworks by an
artistwhentheyinterpretanyoneof
thatartistsartworks.
An interpretationof an artwork
need not matchthe artist'sintent
for the artwork.Themeaningofan
artworkshouldnotbe limitedtowhat
wasintendedbythe artist.Itsmeaning
mightbe muchbroaderthaneventhe
artistknows.Someartistsdonotwork
withspecific,consciousintentionsto
expressparticular anddefiniteideas.
Somearequitecomfortable withtheir
lackofspecificityofintentwhilethey
areworking.Aboutmakingherpaint-
ings,SusanRothenberg(inMarshall&
Mapplethorpe, 1986),forexample,
says:'Theresultsareawayof discov-
eringwhatI knowandwhatI don't,
whatI didn'tknowI knew,andwhatI
wanttolearn-whicharethingsthat
seemcloseto unpaintable, whichis
whyI lovepainting,whichis notquite
likethedonkeyandthecarrot,but
close"(p.94).
Theartist'sinterpretation ofhis or
herownworkofart,ifthe artisthasone
andexpressesit,is oneinterpretation
amongmany,andit is notnecessarily
moreaccurateormoreacceptable just
becauseit is the artist'sinterpretation.
Someartistsarequitearticulate and
speakandwriteveryinsightfully about
theirwork;othersdonot,andsome
choosenotto discussthemeaningof
theirwork,notwantingtheirarttobe
limitedbytheirownviewsofit.
Veryimportantly, thisprinciple
activelyplacestheresponsibility of
interpretationsquarelyonthe shoul-
dersofviewers,notonartists.
However,a criticoughtnotbe the
spokespersonfortheartist.Thisis to
saythatthecriticshoulddomuchmore
thantranscribe whatartistssayabout
theirwork;rather,criticsmustinter-
pret.
The objects of interpretationsare
artworks,not artists. Incasualcon-
versationaboutart,it is artistswhoare
ofteninterpreted-"He's justtryingto
shockus.""She'sanangrywoman."-
ratherthantheworktheymake.Incrit-
icism,however,it shouldbe the objects
thatareinterpreted ratherthantheper-
sonswhomadethe objects.Thisprin-
cipledoesnotexcludebiographical
information. Oftentimescriticsprovide
information aboutthelivesofartists.
Suchbiographical information, howev-
er, shouldbe used to provideinsight
intothework.Biographical informa-
tionremindsus thatartdoesnot
emergeapartfroma socialenviron-
ment InafewsentencesinArtnews,
criticCurtiaJames (1990)providesa
goodexampleofhowbiographical
information canbe interpretively infor-
mativeregardinga sculptural installa-
tionby BeverlyBuchanan:
"Buchanan's ShackSouth:Insideand
outwasa full-sizeshackpatchedtogeth-
eroutofcedar,pine,twine,andcard-
board.Buchananis fromAthens,
Georgia.As a childshe traveledwith
herfather,a professorofagriculture,
whodocumentedthe livesofblack
farmers.Shesawmanyshackslikethis
andperceivedhoweachinhabitant put
his orherownstamp,orimprint,onthe
dwelling,animprintthatidentifiedthe
individualinthe community.
Buchanan's lovingabilityto capture
thatindividualimprintmadeShack
Southanimageofhumblenobility"(p.
203).
Thereis a caution,however,that
concernswhatmightbe called"bio-
graphicaldeterminism." Artistsshould
SEPTEMBER 1994 / ART EDUCATION
notbe lockedintotheirbiographic
pasts,norshouldonearguethatif
someoneis ofthisraceorthatgender
orthishistoricalbackground,
then
theirartmustbe aboutsuchfactors.
All art is in part about the world
in which it emerged. DonaldKuspit
(inVan Proyen, 1991) reinforcedthis
principlewhen discussing his study of
psychoanalysis andits effectonhis crit-
icismof art:"Ibeganto feelthatthe
artistis notexemptfromlife. Thereis
nowayoutfromseeingartas a reflec-
tionormediationora commentonlife.
I becameinterestedintheprocess,
includingthe artist'slife. I became
interestedinhowartreflectedthe
artist'slifeaswellas howit reflectedlife
issues,orexistentialissueswithwhich
we areallinvolved"(p.19).
Anothercritic,PamelaHammond
(1990),remindsus ofthe importance of
thisprinciple,especiallywheninter-
pretingthe artof artistsfroma culture
differentfromthatofthe critic.When
she writesaboutthe sculptureoften
JapaneseartistsshowinginAmerica,
she informsus thattraditional Japanese
artdoesnotrecognize"sculpture" in
andofitself.Wheninterpreting the
massive,shapedtimbersofChuichi
Fujii,she informsus thatJapanesetra-
ditionteachesthatmaterialpossessesa
lifeforceequivalentto thatofa human,
andthat"thedualisticJudeo-Christian
viewthatnaturedefersto manopposes
thebeliefofEasternculturesrootedin
theharmoniouscoexistenceofman
andnature,lifeanddeath,goodand
evil"(pp.201-202).Hercriticalknowl-
edge oftraditional Japaneseaesthetics
informsherinterpretation andour
understanding of the work.
All art is in part about other art
Criticsstate over and over againwho
ART EDUCATION/ SEPTEMBER1994
Dressed
forBall,1988.William
Wegman. 20x
Unique,
24"Polaroid.
Polacolorphotograph. William
Copyright,
Pace/MacGill
Courtesy
Wegman NewYork.
Gallery,
influenceda particular artistandabout
whosearttheartist'sworkmaybe com-
menting.Artdoesnotemergewithin
anaestheticvacuum.Artistsaregener-
allyawareoftheworkofotherartists
andoftentheyareespeciallyawareof
theworkofcertainartists.Even
untrained artistsareawareofandinflu-
encedbythevisualrepresentations in
theirsocieties.Thisprincipleasserts
thatallartcanbe interpreted as tohow
it is influencedbyotherart,andthatin
manycases,someartis specifically
aboutotherart.Artcanbe aboutlife,
aboutart,orboth.Animportant guide
to interpreting anyartis to see howit
relatesto anddirectlyorindirectly com-
mentsuponotherart.
Interpretation is ultimately a
communal endeavor (Parsons,1987),
and the community is eventually
self-corrective. This is an optimistic
view of the artworldand scholarship
thatholdsthatcriticsandhistorians
andotherseriousinterpreters will
eventuallycorrectless thanadequate
andeventually putforth
The meaningofan interpretations
betterinterpretations.Thishappensin
theshortrunandthelongrun.Inthe
artworkshouldnot shortrun,interpretations mightbe very
nearsighted.Thisprincipleassertsthat
be limitedto what eventuallythesenarrowinterpretations
willbe broadened.Essaysinexhibition
wasintendedbythe catalogues,forexample,areoftencom-
pilationsby scholarlycriticsofthebest
artist.Itsmeaning thinkingaboutanartist'sworkto that
point.Suchcompilations putforththe
mightbe much mostplausibleinterpretations available
atthetimeandomitless informative
broaderthaneven ones.
the artistknows.
 Feministrevisionistaccountsof his-
toricalartmade by women are a case in
point. Scholarsfor years andfor cen-
turies have ignored the artof many
women, and it is only now, through
workbegun by feministhistorians,that
the historicalrecordis being repaired.
This is a good example of the scholarly
communitycorrectingits own mis-
takes, howeverbelatedly.
Good interpretations invite us to
see for ourselves and to continue
on our own (Eaton,1988). This princi-
ple reasserts the openness of interpre-
tationsand encourages the viewer to
get involvedwith the meaningof art. It
opposes "right"interpretationsthat end
interpretivediscussions, and it provides
the viewerwith individualfreedomto
meanderintellectuallythroughfields of
thought. It might also serve as a goal
for interpretersto be friendlyto their
audiences by drawingthem in, engag-
ing them in conversationratherthan
haltingdiscussion by dogmaticpro-
nouncements.
IMPLICATIONSFOR TEACHING
These principlesare general and
should hold true no matterwhat the
age of interpreters,but some of the
principleswill not make sense to some
students, dependingon their stage of
intellectualdevelopment. Nonetheless,
the principlescan providedirectionfor
teachers in leadinginterpretivediscus-
sions and for assessing the learningof
students regardingthe interpretationof
art. Thirdgraders,for example,can
arriveat a simple and adequateinter-
pretationof WilliamWegman'sphoto-
graphDressedforBall by seeing it as a
humorous doubleentendre;the dog is
dressed for the tennis ball above its
head and for a formaldance. Karen
Atkinson,a senior artstudentat
ColumbusAlternativeHigh School,
however,has writtenthis more insight-
ful interpretation:"Peopleoften get
dressed up for some big social to-do,as
this dog has. However,that social to-do
may be inflatedin significance. In reali-
ty, what seems too importantmay in
factbe as ordinaryas the bouncingball.
The significanceof the event is extrin-
sic-created by the peoplewho think
the event is important."
In an ideal interpretivediscussion by
advancedartinterpreters,every princi-
ple would come into play,but these
would be hardto trackwithouta verba-
tim transcript.Teachers maywish to
concentrateon and reinforceone or
anotherprinciplein a given lesson,
while they are generallyguided by all of
them. To teach thatinterpretationsare
arguments,for example,students can
be led in a close readingof a piece of
publishedcriticismappropriatefor
their level of developmentandbe
helped in listing on a chalkboardthe
critic'spremises thatlead to a conclu-
sion. They can look for evidence the
criticsuppliesfor the interpretationand
identifypersuasiveuses of language.
Similarly,afterthe students have inter-
preted a work of art,they can reiterate
their own premises which led to their
conclusion.
These principlesshould hold true
for interpretingchildren'sartas well as
artmade by matureartists. Too often in
classroom situationswe ask the child-
artistto be the interpreterand
spokespersonfor his or her own work.
This common activitydiminishesthe
responsibilityof the viewerto thought-
fullyrespondto works of artand runs
counterto the interpretiveprinciples
offeredhere.
TerryBarrettis ProfessorofArt
Education,The OhioState University,
Columbus.
REFERENCES
Alloway,L (1975). TopicsofAmericanart
since1945. NewYork:W.W. Norton.
art:
Barrett,T. (1994). Criticizing
Understanding thecontemporary.
MountainView,CA:Mayfield.
Danto,A (1981). Thetransfiguration ofthe
commonplace: A philosophy ofart.
Cambridge,MA:Harvard.
Eaton,M. (1988).Basicissuesin aesthetics.
Belmont,CA:Wadsworth.
Hammond,P. (1990).Aprimalspirit:Ten
contemporary Japanesesculptors.
Artnews,89(8), 201-202.
Kennick,W. E. (1979).Artandphilosophy.
2ndedition.NewYork:St.Martin'sPress.
James,C. (1985). New history.Artnews,
89(8), 203.
Goodman,N. (1976).Languagesofart.
Indianapolis,IN: Hackett
Margolis,J. (1987).Philosophy looksat the
arts. 3rdedition.Philadelphia, PA:
Temple.
Marshall,R & Mapplethorpe, R. (1986).50
NewYorkartists.SanFrancisco,CA:
ChronicleBooks.
Parsons,M. (1987).Howweunderstand art:A
cognitivedevelopmental accountofaesthetic
experience.NewYork:OxfordUniversity
Press.
Raven,A. (1988). Crossing over:Feminism
andtheartofsocialconcern.AnnArbor,
MI: UMIPress.
VanProyen,M. (1991).A conversationwith
DonaldKuspit.Artweek,September5(19),
19-22.
These principlesareextendedwithexamples
of the writingsof professionalcritics
regardingtheirinterpretations of pho-
tographsbyWilliamWegman,the word
piecesofJennyHolzer,andpaintingsby
ElizabethMurray,in Chapter3,
Interpreting Art. Barrett,Terry,(1994),
CriticizingArt:Understanding the
Contemporary, MountainView,CA:
Mayfield.
The authorthanksLindaHimesandRonald
MacGregorforhelpfuleditorialadvice.
SEPTEMBER 1994 / ART EDUCATION