1. Barrett’s thesis is that good interpretive criticism comes from thorough interpretation from the critic. Interpretation comes from understanding the technicality and intent of a work of art. It is understanding what the author’s main point is for producing the work of art, as well as how it affects and changes the viewers feelings or point of view.
2. The first work Barrett uses is that of Jeff Wall’s photograph “Dead Troops Talk (A vision after an ambush of a Red Army patrol, near Moqor, Afghanistan, winter 1986). He uses Susan Sontag’s review of it to introduce his thesis. Barrett also mentions Joel-Peter Witkin and philosopher Nelson Goodman quote about the “innocent eye”.
3. Interpretation is the act of deconstructing and finding meaning in a photograph or any other work of art. For the critic, it is understanding the different pieces, or metaphors, to a work of art and being able to piece them together in a coherent way that lets other people know what the work of art is about and what the author is trying to say.
4. According to the author, it is important to do this because every photograph is not “innocent” and has a bias or attitude towards something. Interpreting what that is is what will make the photograph more meaningful. Uncovering the hidden meaning will allow the audience to make better informed interpretations as well.
5. The interpretive strategy of Semiotic Interpretation interested me as looking at the presentation of the work of art carries a lot of meaning. Bill Nicholas’s example with the Sports Illustrated football cover depicting the quarterback as being physically bigger than the coach reminded me of hierarchal importance in art dating back thousands of years. However the relationship between the two subjects also brings into question as to who is really more important.
6. The main points are that interpretations follow a kind of spectrum between plausible and implausible, or reasonable and unreasonable. In this sense, viewers and critics can discuss works through different perspectives. However, interpretations should be backed by reason and logic in order to be valued over those that don’t. Believing that art is “subjective” and each viewer has their own “opinions” about it dilutes our ability to debate and share different interpretations and perspectives. Valued interpretations contain correspondence and coherence.
7. The main points is that viewers shouldn’t use the authors said intentions about their work in formulating their interpretations, or else they will fall into the trap of intentionalism. Most of the time a photographer is unaware of what their intention is when they photograph something, as well as, for a lack of a better term, waiting to be spoon fed an answer instead of looking for it ourselves. However, if an author does have intention, then it is important to analyze it like we would any other interpretation.
8. From the reading this week, I learned about the Marxist Approach as seeing works of art as tying back to social reality. I knew there were different ways going about analyzing art, but taking into account the current (or past) social element to it gives then more depth. Learning about the “right” interpretations as well opened up my eyes to analyzing art. I remember hearing someone say that when it comes to art that it is up to the individual to think if it is good or not. On an elementary level this might be permissible, but on a higher level of discussion and thought it is important to interpret different works of art with correspondence and coherence.
9. Barrett’s conclusion is that the only way to properly critic art is to have people from all areas of interpretation say how they interpret art in a way that is sophisticated and makes logical sense. The scale can’t be tipped so that any interpretation is allowed into the discussion, nor can there be an interpretation that “trumps all”. Interpretations change, and so will our understanding of a work of art, thus allowing our knowledge of it to change and perhaps evolve with that new knowledge.
