“Interpretation is the revenge of the intellect upon art. Even more, it is the revenge of the intellect upon the world. To interpret is to impoverish, to deplete the world — in order to set up a shadow world of ‘meanings’.”

— Susan Sontag.





Be Sociable, Share!
  • shaju

    hey Zay you don’t believe in this.. do..??!!!
    Why, if it wasn’t for interpretation it would be difficult to have any association,
    I mean look at anything which is unexplainable.. you immediately try to break away
    from its presence.. whether it’s any unexplained phenomenon or UFO…
    I am not saying ‘ars gratia artis’ is irrelevant, but it does have to still convey an expression,
    whether verbally or emotionally. I am sure that’s what the other side of the phrase is..
    Llook at anything in this world, any phenomenon has a logical argument for its existence,
    else it wouldn’t exist. So I think interpretation is more than just understanding the meaning, but association.

  • Zay


    thanks for your comments! i do believe in this!! i think illiminating the need for interpretation implies that a universality CAN be possible which opens up a world of possibility. interpretation adds a subjective filter onto our perception… which, in turn, implies that a certain distortion will come about as a result. what is it exactly that we are seeing?

    its true that any phenomena has a logical argument for its existence…but dont you think that it is right here that one can say that with a formula of logic applied in order to understand, there need not be any interpretation? logic removes the filter, and brings clarity of understanding.

    association again is a kind of filter, i think…..its like deleuze says about words and hanging meanings. we choose what meaning we assign or associate with different things. no?

  Creative Commons License