In his essay "When Is Art?" Nelson Goodman provides a definitive treatise against the formalist ideal - that of Art without symbolism, Art merely a reflection of itself. In place of this theory, he offers up his theory of exemplification: that all Art is symbolic of something, that it always represents something beyond itself, providing an example of something extrinsic to the work.
As I reflected on this idea, I recalled a poem my class had read in AP English. My classmates and I analysed the given poem looking for some deeper meaning, some symbolism in the poem. After twenty minutes of putting forth theories, our teacher said, "You're all wrong. The point of this poem is this: the author saw a pretty horse and wrote about how it made him feel - what he saw and what he felt."
It made me realize something: not all Art needs to be representative of some larger truth. It can be simply representative merely of thoughts and feelings experienced from seeing a horse on the side of the road, or as complex as a sweeping commentary on the state of society.
And this brings me to the question of symbolism in modern "Art." Can this modern "Art," that tries so hard not to represent anything, really represent nothing? And if it has no representation... can it still be considered "Art?" I think I know how to answer this question... but I will save my own thoughts for a later post. For now, my dear readers, I invite you to provide your own insights on this conundrum.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Is all art purposeful though? Maybe it did not occur to the writer that there were other symbolic meanings behind the writing.
I disagree with your english teacher, only because no one can have a wrong interpretation.
Trying hard to represent nothing, the art succeeds in representing "nothing."
Post a Comment