Art is communication. Since Roland Barthes’ “The Death of the Author,” works of art have been reduced to objects of deconstruction. Isn’t this perhaps an authoritarian and backward-looking way of thinking that fails to regard a work of art as a living organism?
Today, many readers or viewers seem to hear two voices in front of a work of art. One is the Barthesian assertion that “deconstruct the work, the author is already dead,” and the other is the traditional assertion that “understand the author’s intention.” However, is there a third voice we have missed besides these two? If a work is a living, breathing, vivid voice, aren’t attempts to dissect it by presupposing it as a “fixed text” rather than trying to communicate with it, or the idea of returning to the time and place where the work was created, fundamentally flawed from the very premise? We would like to suggest that art can indeed be communication.
Frogs in the Laboratory: Problems Caused by the Objectification of Art
Post-structuralism presupposes a work of art as an “unchanging, fixed text” and seems to regard the exposure of ideology through the deconstruction of its signs as an intellectual virtue. This argument, which views the text as a “fabric woven from quotations” and degrades the artist to a mere “transcribe,” has captivated some intellectuals.
However, just as a frog is no longer alive after being dissected in a laboratory, we will miss a great deal if we regard works of art merely as “objects” of deconstruction. This is because true works of art aim for communication. Hearing the voice of a work is an act possible only when the work is alive. To experience the work speaking to us, it is only possible when each work retains the creator’s intention intact as a whole—that is, before it is deconstructed into parts.
Another problem is that the logic defining the text as an unchanging, fixed object may be the “most backward-looking way of thinking” that post-structuralists might dislike the most. When we encounter a novel, a symphony, or a work of art in our teens, our twenties, and later in life, we can feel that the piece resonates differently each time. In other words, while the outward form of the text may remain fixed, the thoughts, emotions, and perspectives that arise during our interaction with it feel fresh and unique every time.
Before Seeking the ‘Intention’: Let’s Listen to the ‘Sound’ the Work Speaks
Naturally, the assertion to “identify the author’s intention” is not a complete solution either. This is because the moment we think, “I will read the intention,” we are once again embalming the work into a fixed question with a definitive answer. It is problematic for tracing intentions to become an act of establishing another authority while criticizing deconstruction.
Rather, the attitude required of the reader (viewer) is to strive to listen to the true sound of the work. Instead of becoming a critic, open your ears for communication and quietly approach the work; become their eyes and hands to feel together what the artist intends to tell, show, and read. This process of striving to fully listen to the voice of the work is, in itself, a sincere and humble attitude toward others (the creators) who have discovered something before you.
Let us take Georgia O’Keeffe’s giant flower paintings as an example. While there are quite a few critics who interpret the images within the artist’s flower paintings as sexual symbols, if you take ample time to look at the work without any preconceived notions, you discover what we are missing when we see flowers in our daily lives. The artist herself left these words regarding her work:
“Nobody sees a flower really; it is so small. We haven’t time, and to see takes time.” — No one sees a flower properly. It is too small. We have no time, and seeing something takes time.
Perhaps the artist simply wanted to communicate with the world about the essence of the flower that people have not yet discovered. That is why the artist does not force her interpretation upon us. It was merely a suggestion to “slowly look together into this wondrous thing you have just brushed past.” In this way, the attitude of definitively labeling something as a “specific sign” and attempting to deconstruct it before even hearing the voice the artist seeks to communicate through the work seems no different from treating something alive and moving like a piece of meat in a slaughterhouse.
Potential for Open Space: The ‘Third Work’ and Growth
If one believes that a work of art is alive, the following thought naturally follows. Living things transform one another and grow together through encounters. As the Buddhist theory of dependent origination states, all existence is not isolated in isolation but gains meaning only within relationships with one another. The same is true for works of art. It is difficult to say that a work is fully alive until it meets the viewer, and the viewer cannot awaken the new self sleeping within it until they encounter it. In other words, the moment we carefully listen to the artist’s thoughts and voice, we may discover a space within the work where we can enter and be contained. Perhaps true appreciation and interpretation of a work of art lies in discovering the moments and spaces where one’s own distinct experiences and thoughts resonate with a specific artwork. And it is precisely at this point that “growth”—a “third work” that neither the creator nor the viewer can produce alone—can be born.
This growth will bring about a virtuous cycle that allows the viewer to perceive the meaning of the work in a newer and richer way. In other words, a creative work is a tool for “dynamic communication” that begins only the moment it meets the viewer. The conclusion of this communication, which begins with a cautious approach to the work, is, of course, entirely up to the viewer. One can mechanically follow the direction indicated by the artist, or together find a new path through the work. And as such growth increases, we become able to engage with the work with greater depth.
Then, what is the necessity of the “deconstruction” advocated by Barthes? “Deconstruction” can serve as a vital tool that can be drawn upon as needed during this process of communication. This is because analyzing the symbolic meanings implied by a text—whether to break old conventions or to delve deeper—can actually facilitate communication. The important thing is to recognize that deconstruction itself should not be the goal, but merely a method of communication, a means. There is a vast difference between drawing a knife to tear apart a part before seeing the whole picture, and taking sufficient time to examine it and then utilizing the appropriate tools if necessary.
A Future-Oriented Appreciation Method: ‘Growing Together’
As such, a true method of appreciation does not view a work as a treasure chest containing hidden answers, nor as a meaningless mass of symbols to be unconditionally deconstructed. Perhaps the most important thing is to regard art not as an object, but as a companion that grows alongside you for your own sake. Isn’t the process of listening to the artist’s voice, repeating it, and finding your own perspective and world within the new resonance that rings out together the most positive growth one can gain through appreciating art?
As with everything else, what is important in art appreciation is not trying to find a fixed answer within the preconceived notion that one exists, but rather the process of striving to derive something undefined. Beyond the past logic of viewing art as a fixed text and deconstructing it, we need a collaborative effort to communicate and contemplate how we can grow into a new being through our encounter with art. The beginning of this effort lies not in any authority, nor conversely, in the deconstruction of such authority, but in the understanding and courage of the viewer who wishes to communicate cautiously.
In Conclusion
Have we not, until now, regarded works of art merely as “objects to conquer” or “codes to decipher”? After fully listening to the artist’s voice, try to feel the reactions occurring within you. Did you discover something new emerging beyond the direction the artwork pointed?
This editorial began with the belief that rather than arguing over “who holds the power of interpretation,” if art is a living entity, our method of appreciation must also be alive. We believe that the warm heart of communication, rather than the cold logic of deconstruction, will lead us further and deeper into art. Polyview Online hopes that the open hearts of our readers will become the beginning of a new dialogue.
