Bonhoeffer on art interpretation

I grew up in a house full of art appreciation. I don’t entirely know we she got it from, but my Mum was pretty good on her art history. She had books full of major works of art, she knew the artists and their works. She could oil paint fairly well herself (though they were always not-quite-finished, face to the wall, behind her dressing table). I studied art myself in senior years of high school. That is just my disclaimer to prevent myself being written off as a total philistine in the rest of this post.

Because, all that aside I have very little patience with what I believe is popularly known as “art bollocks”, perpetuated by those who believe they are “interpreting art” (I did like this newspaper article about the facebook “arty bollocks generator”). I have even less patience for artists themselves who need to accompany their work with an essay in order for anybody at all to understand it. I have stood before some modern artworks, reading the copious explanation, and thought, ‘well this is more of a political essay with a little illustration than a visual artwork isn’t it?’.

So, I was amused to read Bonhoeffer’s thoughts on art interpretation, penned in a letter home when he was visiting Rome, from Bonhoeffer by Eric Metaxas. And as someone who, at least according to tests, relies heavily on intuition, but who often feels the struggle to articulate why it is I do or don’t aesthetically like or dislike something, I was in agreement with Bonhoeffer that putting your own conclusions into words is essentially meaningless for anyone else.

(You’d have to read this biography to get a glimpse of the kind of family Bonhoeffer descended from to understand why he was so self-confident in his observations.)

However, it might be better for a layperson to be completely silent and to leave everything to the artists, because the current art historians really are the worst guides. Even the better ones are awful. This includes Scheffler and Worringer, who arbitrarily interpret, interpret, and further interpret the artworks. There is no criterion for their interpretation and its correctness. Interpreting is generally one of the most difficult problems. Yet, our whole thinking process is regulated by it. We have to interpret and give meaning to things so that we can live and think. All of this is very difficult. When one doesn’t have to interpret, one should just leave it alone. I believe that interpretation is not necessary in art. One doesn’t need to know whether it is “Gothic” or “primitive,” etc, persons who express themselves in art. A work of art viewed with clear intellect and comprehension has its own effect on the unconscious. More interpretation won’t lead to a better understanding of the art. One either intuitively sees the right thing or one doesn’t. This is what I call an understanding of art. One should work diligently to try to understand the work while looking at it. After that one gets the absolutely certain feeling, “I have grasped the essence of this work”. Intuitive certainty arises on the basis of some unknown procedure. To attempt to put this conclusion into words and thereby to interpret the work is meaningless for anyone else. It doesn’t help one person, other people won’t need it, and the subject itself gains nothing by it.