I think it's true that to understand an artwork involves a kind of active experience of it, different from experiencing it passively. Mostly we experience art passively, or assume to. But when we are active in the way I'm suggesting, we begin to vicariously recreate it. We examine it for its formal elements, its modes of presentation, its codes and devices. And this may in fact lead us away from the work's expressive quality to an "understanding" of it (as a grammarian understands syntax). To submit to the work's expressive authority (to be led by it) is to experience it passively. Perhaps we can't make hard boundaries between active -passive in this context and perhaps we continually move from one to the other, as if they vibrate to and fro, (and enhance each other) but essentially I think we can sense the difference. I think Derek's speaker failed to answer his question by not distinguishing between the active and passive participation of the audience with an artwork.
WC --- Derek Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think this is a very interesting comment. > > What does it mean to 'understand' a work of art? > > I was at a conference recently where one of the > speakers, who writes a > lot about music, kept talking about understanding > music. In question > time I asked her what she meant by 'understanding' > in this context. I > said I could see how one could talk about > understanding a mathematical > proof, for example, but what did the word mean in > relation to music > (and I really meant all art). > > She first began to answer by saying that one > understood if one could > recognise shifts in keys etc. But I said I was > talking about the > average person not someone schooled in the > techniques if music. > (After all, that clearly can't be the point.) So > then she said in a > rather flippant way as if to make light of the > matter that one > understood music if one could recognise its tunes > and hum them. > > I didn't pursue the question further but this > obviously can't be > right. How does humming tunes equate to > understanding? Moreover, > there is a lot of music I love medieval and > Renaissance liturgical > music for example - where I couldn't hum the tunes > to save myself. > (The same goes for certain forms of non-Western > sacred music which > often has no recognisable 'tunes'). > > I came to the conclusion that the person concerned > had not really > given any serious thought to the problem (leading > aesthetician though > she was). But it *is* a problem and Monet's > comment highlights it > nicely. What does 'understanding' a work of art > mean? > > DA > > ---------------------------------------------- > > > On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 10:15 AM, aesthete aesthete > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > - Everyone discusses my art and pretends to > understand, as if it were > > necessary to understand, when it is simply > necessary to love. > > > > Monet > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > Search that pays you back! Introducing Live Search > cashback. > > > http://search.live.com/cashback/?&pkw=form=MIJAAF/publ=HMTGL/crea=srchpaysyou > > back > > > > > > > > -- > Derek Allan > http://www.home.netspeed.com.au/derek.allan/default.htm
