There was an RGT debate about the Treachery of Images? what was the debate?

Only if it's used originally. Draughtsmanship and craftsmanship alone don't make an artist.


You will find deliberate ambiguity in some art but it's wrong to get it wrong obv. If you are saying the "receiver" can't get it wrong then you are wrong.

Only if it's used originally. Draughtsmanship and craftsmanship alone don't make any kind of artist.


You will find deliberate ambiguity in some art but it's wrong to get it wrong obv. If you are saying the "receiver" can't it wrong then you are wrong.

Considering your general tone in RGT, you'll have to excuse me for thinking that you claiming I am wrong is about as persuasive as a comma.

Are you saying that for any piece of art, there exists interpretations that are not correct?

false.

look at reproductions. People can make good money making excellent quality reproductions of famous artwork. Artists who make shoddy reproductions can only charge a very low price.

nobody is claiming that they do, only showing that they are a partial contributor to refute your claim of those features having zero value.

I respond to others as they respond to me. Some posters are incredibly rude but the mods allow it. I'd prefer a well run forum where different shades of opinion were treated with respect.

Yes it's possible to interpret art wrongly.

That wasn't what I asked. I asked if "there for any piece of art exists incorrect interpretations?". I'm sure you are aware of the difference between this and asking if "is it possible to interpret art wrongly?", so I won't bother to point it out.

Would you mind answering the first of these?

The answer is still an emphatic "Yes". We all get pop songs wrong (there's no point in talking about Magritte when half of the posters think he's a fictional French detective !)

who decides on the correct interpretation?

The artist generally has something in mind when he's doing it but if he's dead or a bit thick then there are respected experts who explain it to us.

The art is supposed to be the medium between the artist and the audience, if the artist becomes the medium by which the art is explained to us I'd generally argue that they are doing it wrong.

Critical analysis or "interpretation" of an artist's work is specious. When the rain falls, lightening cracking through the spaces of nature then siting in that corn field with an umbrella over your head, will not do; run, noble one, run!

There are of course "schools" or "periods" of types of painting, music, architecture, etc.. but "periods of meaning" stretches the limits of comprehensibility. Its only online but look at the images of the two periods of sculpture; Rodin and ancient Greek sculpture.

Rodin:

http://www.rodinmuseum.org/collectio...ID=286&arID=97

Greek:

http://www.google.com/search?q=greek...M%3Bhttp%253A%

Experiencing the music of Beethoven and Bach will surely clarify the differences in "experience" but to "interpret" these greats is beyond pedantic.

Sometimes the art has to be explained otherwise you would never get it eg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:B_...landscape).jpg

I may not get what the artist intended but that's not what I'm interested in when I iew a piece. We may make certain inferences but that aspect of the artistic experience belongs to us not them.

If I say what a piece means to me it can't be wrong if I suggest what it means to the artist or another viewer I can be. At the point I'm the viewer though it's my interpretation than I'm interested in.

Would this view change if the purpose of a certain art piece was to change your view to validate the artists meaning instead of ones own?

I don't think "It's all about me" is a valid approach eg if everyone is laughing at a joke except you there's no validity in your response if you just didn't get it and laughed when it was explained to you.

Depends. Intentionalism is certainly a legitimate view on art, but it is also a hotly contested one.

Regardless, there is a very huge difference between "intentionalism might be difficult to argue against in some cases" and "any given piece of art has wrongful interpretations" like Cwocwoc explicitly holds, and maybe even more notably "any piece of art has a correct interpretation" which he seems to implicitly hold.

Art by its nature can be ambiguous but there is a difference between knowing art and not knowing art. That's why there are courses for it. Here are a couple who know their onions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9OCS08rabE