Catherine David and Irit Rogoff, “In Conversation”, in Claire Doherty ed., From Studio to Situation, London: Black Dog Publishing, 2004, pp.82-89
Catherine David has worked since 2002 as director of the Witte de With Centre for Contemporary Art in Rotterdam. She’s also worked as a curator at the National Museum of Modern Art, Paris. Her exhibitions since the nineties have examined art-practice in relation to contemporary socio-political issues.
Irit Rogoff is a theorist and curator who writes on the critical, the political, and contemporary arts practices. Rogoff is a professor at Goldsmiths College, London University, in the department of Visual Cultures, which she founded in 2002.
There’s a notion of cultural specificity that runs through the text, the idea that knowledge of a culture’s history and customs is necessary to understand an artwork from that culture, or that the artwork needs to be viewed in its place of creation to successfully communicate the intensions driving the work.
An individual’s understanding of a representation will differ depending on the individual’s cultural understanding of that being represented. Irit Rogoff states that some elements of cultural experience or “rapport” effect an individual’s perception and interpretation of an artwork, “In rapport we have all kinds of conceits, we have all kinds of illusions. We have a notion of understanding. We have a notion of insight. There is a kind of empathy that is fore-grounded, there’s a notion of investigation.”[1]
Reuben Paterson‘s 2004 exhibition ‘Open for Interpretation’, deals with an understanding of interpretation. Paterson is influenced by “visual, lived and philosophical traditions of his Maori ancestors”, “‘Open to Interpretation’ is a conduit to ask where do such foundations of knowing come from?”[2] His work explores an understanding of Maori culture through the use of appropriated traditional Maori design, translated through the medium of glitter, which “suggest the assured defiance of Maori culture in the face of loss. But they also emit an air of melancholy”.[3]
Although it may be necessary to understand the cultural context of an artwork before completely understanding the intended concept projected by the work, I believe the interpretation of an artwork is always in the eye of the viewer, as argued in Roland Barthes’s ‘Death of the Author’. Thus the interpretation of an artwork’s concept is a result of any individual’s personal interpretation, culturally aware or not.
[1] Catherine David and Irit Rogoff. “In Conversation”, in Claire Doherty
ed., From Studio to Situation, London: Black Dog Publishing, 2004, pp.86
[2] http://www.reubenpaterson.com/press/R_PATERSON_Narcissus_Press.pdf pp.1 accessed 06/05/2010
[3] http://the-artists.org/artist/paterson-reuben accessed 06/05/2010
I found your points on interpretation of artwork particularly interesting as I believe that in most cases it is one's own lack of knowledge on a particular subject or culture that creates a dislocation between the viewer and the work. However, I think it is often overlooked when one does not understand or connect with a work, based on its aesthetics because I believe that this could be a tool to draw viewers into the work or perhaps make them aware of a concept that they may not have understood otherwise.
ReplyDeleteI found your comment that Catherine David stressed that a cultural specificity and knowledge of a culture was integral to fully understanding the work important. In an ever increasing multi-cultural nation, and also, with the potential for artwork and visual images to be utilised and accessed from all corners of the world via the internet, cultural awareness becomes key if an audience is to grasp the complexity of the work, as well as the wider cultural context it has been created in.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree the idea that interpretation of an artwork is always in the eye of viewer.Although the intention of the artist might not be the same as viewers but I think than it is artist's role to play to give viewers intended reading of the work. And also to put 'tricky' twists into the viewers which would make the viewers think about the underlying meanings. I think whether the work is cultural or have any other background meanings the work will read in a many different ways by the individual's background.(not only culturally but also by their knowledge and memories etc..)
ReplyDeleteI found your example of Rueben Paterson’s exhibition ‘Open for Interpretation’ effective in backing your argument as it was an exhibition that clearly questions the conception of interpretation posed to our multi-cultural society including some of those who do not have deep understanding of Maori culture. I agree with your point on that interpretation is always in the viewers eye, however, I also agree with Ans’ comment that ’it is one's own lack of knowledge’ that dislocates the viewer and the work, and in this case the artist should not be blamed for any misinterpretation/misunderstanding or possible desregardment.
ReplyDelete