{"id":10839,"date":"2015-01-13T14:38:58","date_gmt":"2015-01-13T19:38:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/hilbertthm90.wordpress.com\/?p=2184"},"modified":"2022-06-21T12:33:36","modified_gmt":"2022-06-21T17:33:36","slug":"on-sontags-against-interpretation-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/amindformadness.com\/2015\/01\/on-sontags-against-interpretation-2\/","title":{"rendered":"On Sontag’s “Against Interpretation”"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Interpretation is an act of violence against the artist. At least that’s what Sontag believed. Read on to find out why and my thoughts on it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Against<\/a><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

Historical Context<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

If you’re unfamiliar, Susan Sontag was a well-known cultural critic and essayist (among other things). She started publishing in the mid-’60s and continued all the way into the 2000s. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Against Interpretation<\/em> was published in 1966. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The context here is interesting. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

If you’re unfamiliar academic literary criticism, there was a period of time starting around the early ’40s where literary theorists thought a text could stand on its own. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The text would make you<\/em> feel something. The symbols and themes would mean something to you<\/em>. And that was how it should be since you<\/em> were the one doing the interpreting.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The nail in the coffin of the author came a bit later with Barthe’s Death of the Author<\/a><\/em>. This school of thought was roughly associated with something called “New Criticism.” <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The New Critics argued for doing close readings of a text, and this came to dominate the scene so much that we were all taught this as the only way to analyze literature.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hirsch reacted to the New Criticism as somehow being too loose. You could make anything mean anything through a close reading. He wanted only certain narrow, well-justified interpretations, based on the author’s intent, to be valid.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For an in-depth examination of Hirsch’s viewpoint, check out my article: Authorial Intent and Validity in Interpretation<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sontag’s Interpretation<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\"Against<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

In “Against Interpretation,” Sontag also reacts to the New Criticism, but in the opposite direction: the whole idea of interpretation is wrong-headed.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

She begins by lamenting for a time when we weren’t so inundated with theory. She argues that we’ve become too obsessed with content. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

We tend to approach a work of art ready to interpret and extract its content. We start pulling out symbols and translating these into some meaning before we even have a chance to experience the work.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Art is supposed to be messy, complicated, and uncomfortable at times. The act of interpretation clears out the mess, simplifies it, and makes it comfortable. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

We often feel an overwhelming urge that works of art must be about something. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

How often do you hear:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I’ve heard of that book. What’s it about?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

It is even possible that the artist intended certain objects to be interpreted as symbols, but the meaning is not what gives art its merit. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Abstract art tries to be all form and no content in order to resist the destruction of interpretation. But artists shouldn’t have to flee from interpreters in order to escape.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the seventh section of the essay, Sontag makes a startling prediction. <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The fact that films have not been overrun by interpreters is in part due simply to the newness of cinema as an art.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

From our vantage point, 50 years later, we can say she was correct. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Open any newspaper or go to a film blog or find an academic journal of film studies. Cinema gets dissected through interpretation as much as any other art form.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sontag’s Solution Against Interpretation<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

She ends the essay with a solution to this problem of over-interpretation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Commentary and criticism are both possible and necessary. We need to switch from our obsession with content and talk more about form. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

She points to Barthes and others for people who have given solid formal analysis. We could also try to “reveal the sensuous surface of art without mucking about in it.” <\/p>\n\n\n\n

We can focus on description rather than on what you think the description means.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

When we interpret, we take the sensory experience for granted. The purpose of art is to be experienced, not over-analyzed. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Our task is to cut back content so that we can see the thing at all. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The goal of criticism should be to make works of art more real to us. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The function of criticism should be to show how it is what it is, even that it is what it is, rather than to show what it means.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

My Thoughts<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Now that I’ve summarized the essay, I’ll comment on it. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

I think this is in some sense an overreaction or maybe even a straw man argument. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

For example, Hirsch, who values the author’s intent, would probably say that if the author intended for the work to be a purely visceral experience with no excess symbolism in it, then to read that symbolism in it would be an invalid interpretation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

More specifically, genre matters. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Some genres call for detailed, complicated interpretation and some call for no interpretation. Sontag’s essay seems to call for a complete rejection of interpretation whereas the other side seems to argue that if you want to interpret, then here are some tools for it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Maybe this is the 50-year gap, but I don’t know anyone that calls for always interpreting all the time. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Even the most analytic of critics would admit that it is perfectly valid to just experience a work sometimes. So, I guess I’m somewhat confused at what this essay is really arguing against.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On the other hand, I fully agree that we often over-analyze and reach for interpretations without first experiencing a work. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

I absolutely hate the question: what is that about? <\/p>\n\n\n\n