Art

Art is another issue on how you interpret it. How do we know that when art historians write about a picture that is how the artist wants it interpreted? The artist could have a very different idea or maybe they just did the piece of art and it has no meaning. There was no intention set forth. The painting more or less resulted from their personal life. They did not know how to express it any other way so they did it by painting or drawing, basically by making a picture of it. (Rene Magritte, “Psychoanalysis…is only one interpretation among others. It gives a symbolic value to the things chosen by the artist. I believe however that a cloud and nothing more. I do not believe in the subconscious, nor do I believe that the world presents itself to us a dream, except when we are asleep.” “ What we can see in a painted picture that fascinates us loses its charm when we meet in reality that which we see in the picture. And vice versa. What we like in reality when represented in a picture a matter of indifference to us – if we do not confuse the Real and the Surreal, and the Surreal with the Subreal.” “ It is not my intention to make anything comprehensible. I am of the opinion that there are sufficient paintings, which one understands after a shorter or longer delay, & that therefore some incomprehensible painting would now be welcome. I am at pains to deliver such, as far as possible.” Chagall said of his paintings, “I don’t understand them at all. They are not literature. They are only pictorial arrangements of images that obsess me… The theories which I would make up to explain myself and those which others elaborate in connection with my work are nonsense…. My paintings are my reason for existence, my life, and that’s all” (p. 165 Modern Art Sam Hunter, John Jacobus, Daniel Wheeler, 3rd Ed.)