Kim post 7

Kim Hambright – Post 7

Art is subjective: It is different for every person, and that is generally accepted. Likewise, the meaning of a work will be interpreted differently by each person that views it. One’s past experiences, personal beliefs and values weigh on him or her, thus drastically changing an artwork’s meaning from person to person. “Artistic meaning, like all meaning, is a matter of interpretation.” (Steiner, p.33) In the case of Robert Mapplethorpe’s X Portfolio, consisting of many controversial, sadomasochistic photographs, little is left to the imagination. Still, I do not believe that creating a visual representation of something is the same as openly advocating it. Often, artists use their creativity as an expressive outlet to denounce an act or idea.

Many postmodernist artists, such as Barbara Kruger, practice the art of opposition. In Kruger’s piece, Small World for example, sarcasm is used to convey a strong social and political message. The text of the image, “It’s a small world, but not if you have to clean it,” exemplifies the traditional role of women as the housewives, whose duty it is to cook, clean, and keep a nice home. Kruger’s intention however, is not to promote the idea of gender roles, but instead to break them down. The message is used in an opposite way to inform the viewers of the everyday struggles and stereotypes women face. Simply because Kruger often depicts women in traditional roles does not mean she advocates them. Alternatively, her artwork is meant to denounce the social norm of gender inequality, by exposing its ever-present evils.

While not all artists use sarcasm or opposition of meaning to get their points across, it is equally apparent that not all artists advocate the subjects of their artwork. While Mapplethorpe’s artwork is vastly different from Kruger’s, the basic idea of personal interpretation is the same. One can look at his work and feel offended, aroused, or indifferent, and that is okay. Images are often forced to stand on their own, (usually for lack of information of the artist’s intention) and one must provide his or her own interpretation and conclusion of the piece. While one person may see an image as a positive reflection of society, another person may view it and interpret it as a negative reflection. Regardless of this fact, I feel it is important to view any piece of artwork with an open mind: the image might horrify of confuse you, yet, “unworthy art is still art,” (Steiner, pg. 54) and “aesthetic maturity is the ability to take contemporary art on the chin.” (Steiner, pg. 4)

It is possible to argue that any piece of text and visual artwork representing the same ideas have the same affect on the spectator. After all, the same body of information is provided to the individual, regardless of the means it takes to get there. I however, do not feel this way. I tend to agree with Steiner’s statement that, “The interpreter’s creative activity is more important than the text…” (Steiner, pg.6) The visuals Mapplethorpe presents his audience with have a strong sense of sexuality. Similar to pornography, the images create a feeling in many viewers that would not be created if the same information was explained to the viewer, instead of shown to them in the form of a photograph. Mapplethorpe himself even admitted to liking his own sadomasochistic photos because, “There was a feeling I could get looking at pornographic imagery that I thought had never been apparent in art.” (Steiner, pg. 57)

It is my opinion that textual articles, more so than traditional artworks, rely heavily on the individual to make their own interpretation. As children grow older they graduate from reading picture books to chapter books, a critical step for each child in the development of not only their reading skills, but also their imaginations and creative minds. When reading a chapter book, one is forced to come up with their own images to go along with the text, and to interpret our easily manipulated language into something that pleases us, or suits our liking. I feel that it is the opposite for visual artworks. A visual artwork, by definition and purpose, puts an image into your head. One has no control over the image they are looking at, and therefore have a much more limited ability to see what they want to see. While the ability to interpret an artwork is available to the viewer, the actual image itself cannot be changed. It is because of this theory that I think visual images are often more controversial, and more likely to be criticized. A visual image has a sense of control over the viewer that is not possible with text. For example, reading a lustful romance novel that delicately (or not so delicately) describes a sexual encounter between a couple (heterosexual or homosexual) does not have the same effect on the reader that viewing a “pornographic” work of art would. The visual is not controlled by the viewer; it cannot be slowed down, or taken bit by bit. Artwork is instant, with one look a viewer can make his or her own interpretation of it, something it is hard-pressed for text to accomplish.

Steiner speaking of Mapplethorpe’s work: “His photographs are thrilling not only because their classicized poses and compositions are very beautiful, but because they attach the poise and calm of classicism to an intense eroticism.” (Steiner, pg. 56)

One can certainly argue that the creative elements of Mapplethorpe’s work derive from classical ideologies, and even that the artistic elements such as lighting and centrality prove him to be a talented artist. Unfortunately for him, the label of a “talented artist” will not ensure that his words won’t be criticized, denied as art, or even banned. Based mostly on what was said by the senators in the film Damned in the USA, I believe that artists who share similar styles with Mapplethorpe will be targets for not only the media, but also for conservative groups. I don’t think that the NEA will be allowed to fund individual artists without extensive research into their intentions, as a protectional method instituted by the government. Mapplethorpe’s artwork will never be banned, simply used as an example. His images will continue to be used in classes like this one to represent the censorship of our society, and I feel they will also be used in some conservative institutions as a reminder of what not to do. While the government may not ban Mapplethorpe’s works, the possibility of banning other artworks of similar style is high. Until the priorities of this country change, censorship will be a problem, and organizations such as the NEA will be greatly restricted in their support of individual artists.