this is a question from my Art History online class. i think i went a teeny bit off base, if not off-topic.
Q: Often modern viewers and historians try to psychoanalyze artists through their work. What do you think of this notion? How much should we read into a work of art? Would you want people to read that deeply into your own work to formulate opinions about you and your state of mind?
Art is not always planned, nor is it always predictable. It is my believe that even though there are reasons and purposes behind each piece of work from most artists, some of them are results of spontaneity, creativity, and subconscious minds of the artists. Psychoanalysis can help revealing not only the meaning intended to be seen but also what lies beneath, at least to a degree. As writing classes always encourage; show, don’t tell. And although psychoanalyzing artwork can help us understand better of the artist’s background and anything related, art is not scientific nor mathematic. Art, and design, for that matter, is of personal opinion. There is no exact scale or standardization to define the meaning of each peace. I’m sure as much as some artists would like viewers to see their hidden meaning, there are some who wouldn’t agree that you’d look too deep into it.
To psychoanalyze means to investigate the mind and create theories about human behaviour. It is something most people do daily, to understand what a lonesome woman in a coffee shop may be thinking, or to crack the code that Leonardo da Vinci may or may not have left behind. Does looking so deep into the meaning behind the work make us blind to seeing what’s right on the surface? Life is full of mysteries and unanswered questions, what’s a few more?
Personally, I think psychoanalyzing the artwork is a good thing, if it’s not overdone. As much as we’d like to understand the creators of these beautiful things we admire, we have to be careful not to put too much of ourselves into the analysis and misinterpret the work as a whole.




they JUST said: