Articles
Mondegreen, Where Are You?
Posted: 04.06.07 by to Better Design
Janine made an interesting comment in our discussion on the nature of art as communication. She said “I may look at [a piece of art] tomorrow and walk away with a completely different feeling [than the feeling it gives me today]. The beauty is in how art inspires us in so many different ways.”
This idea that art is appealing because it means different things to different people seems pretty popular. But it got me thinking: If this is true, and it’s true that art is about communicating, then does it matter if an audience correctly understands what an artist was trying to communicate?
Here’s an example: Mondegreens. When people misunderstand poems and mishear lyrics, they get a meaning that is completely separate from the artist’s original intention. But as long as this new meaning has an impact on the mishearer, it seems to be just as valid. A lot of artists like to cite this validity as a reason not to explain the original intent of their pieces.
But then, if it’s true that the original intent is not the important thing to derive from art, then what is? It seems like the default answer would be “emotional change.” But if that’s true, then what’s the difference between high art and low culture?
O, to wax postmodern….
In any event, that article on mondegreens was just the tip of the icebox. Have a good weekend!
Alex 04.06.07 @ 04:16PM #
i think that difference between high art and low culture was actually the kind of thinking warhol tried to dissuade with his subject matter. or david lachapelle today with his way of not creating a distinction between commercial work and “art” work. it’s all the same.
i would think that “disgust” can fall into the “emotional change” answer to varying degrees of severity. if nothing else, certain artists can expect that it will follow from some groups. take for example the recently canceled chocolate jesus exhibit for easter week or a number of damien hurst’s past works. depending on who you ask, it becomes high art or low culture.
but maybe the “emotional change” idea is too specific and we should revisit the simple notion of “visual communication.” because what some consider art, others may not, and vice versa. i don’t think the lascaux cave paintings were intended to be art when made, but more like, “i just killed a damn auroch!”
same goes for the guy who designed the brillo box.