Article

Depth

Depth is in the Eye of the Beholder.

It is difficult for me to accept this concept, perhaps as a result of my involuntary scientific approach to all studies. The question is concerned with our study of literature and the validity of various analyses and interpretations if the author’s original intentions are not known. For example, entire papers are written about a particular symbol in a single scene. Should this paper be discounted if we were to somehow learn that the author had made no such symbolic connection?

I am finally convinced now because of a fantastic discussion with one of my professors. An artist’s work is not solely the product of their model; instead, it is influenced by the multitude of stimuli they encounter over the course of the day, month, even lifetime. If questioned about an especially thick stroke on the canvas and its symbolism, the artist may explain that they simply pressed too heavily and did not bother to smooth it down. However, a young Art History student had already written their thesis on the connection between the artist’s painting and the thick-stroked works of another artistic movement. It is possible that the artist really had pressed too hard, but it is equally possible that he or she could have encountered works of the thick-stroked movement and subconsciously or inadvertently applied them to their own work. An analysis is a deeply personal interpretation whose claims should remain alive to represent the author’s experience and not necessarily the artist’s original intentions.

In most cases, a simple interview is not possible as the artist or writer may be dead, so it may be impossible to ever know what their objective was. Therefore, the analyses and explorations that stretch the works to their limits should stand as possibilities, each with its own supported claims.

Study the text, its environment and even its author. It is the studying of the author’s act of writing the work that will limit the possibilities for exploration.

6 Comments

1. Eric. I

   Mar 5, 22:04

   I agree that looking at the author’s history and context gives a good direction towards how to analyze a work. The prime example for me is analyzing Viginia Woolf’s To The Lighthouse. If I wasn’t aware of her interest in Freud then I wouldn’t have picked up on tons of hidden imagery and themes.
   
   But I also believe in my English Prof’s advice: You just make things up. As long as you can justify your position with evidence that’s all that really matters, irregardless of what the original author intended. But I think that knowing the author’s personality and environment point you in the right direction.

2. andreas

   Mar 6, 04:40

   I agree to you both; I studied English along with Biology and in my heart I think scientifically. This made it sometimes hard for me to accept the “soft” interpretations in literature.
   
   However, I’ve learned for myself that the idea of constructivism is very fruitful both for understanding or biological perception and our understanding of art. And the “great” part in “great literature” or “great art” is that is so rich that everyone can find their personal meaning in it.
   
   I agree, though, that in terms of interpretation, it has to be backed by evidence from the work.

3. Thame

   Mar 6, 07:17

   It was unbelievably hard for me and still is to some extent. What was especially difficult was that the class was based on studying history and culture through the literary works they produced.
   
   This made it sometimes hard for me to accept the “soft” interpretations in literature.
   
   That’s exactly the kind of description I was looking for. It is definitely “soft” but that should not (at least in the study of literature) discount their claims assuming they are well supported.

4. Jonathan Dobres

   Mar 6, 21:51

   I once had a professor who had an interesting way of teaching his Psychology of Personality class. As an intro to any major theorist’s views on personality, the professor would give us a lengthy biography of the theorist’s life, so that we could see how the life of the theorist influenced the theory. The ad hominem approach. Casts Freud in a very interesting light.
   
   Also, Eric, “irregardless” is not a word. With any luck, it never will be. :-)

5. Eric. I

   Mar 7, 06:45

   Yeah I know, but I have a terrible habit of using it still :P I just got an essay back with the same mistake – stupid language!

6. Thame

   Mar 7, 08:12

   Jonathan: It can be very useful to study the author or artist before the work (I would also say that the setting is equally interesting) because it can give you a place to start. By increasing your knowledge of the work’s environment, you increase the “surface area” at which you can attack the piece.
   
   I used to use irregardless all the time until I saw this stand-up comedy show with George Lopez where he “explained” how it wasn’t an actual word. Good show…

Comment

Name:
E-mail:
http://
Message:

Extras

Subscribe

To subscribe to this site, follow the link above. You will be able to select your preferred format and subscription manager from within the feed.

Recent Articles

• Activation Synthesis
• An Equation
• Wishing I Was at SXSW
• Human Resources
• Reform digg

Recent Comments

• loans (5 Tips for Organizing Your CSS)
• credit loans (Ayn Rand's Objectivism)
• credit loans (Charity of the Month - February Results)
• Thame (Wishing I Was at SXSW)
• Thame (An Equation)

Forum Activity

Found

The document has moved here.

Search