Ripping apart our obsession with finding hidden meanings, Sontag's radical manifesto exposes how overanalysis kills art's raw power. By urging us to experience rather than decode, she frees us from the tyranny of interpretation—revealing that our compulsive need to explain art often prevents us from truly seeing it.
Against Interpretation, a seminal collection of essays by Susan Sontag published in 1966, serves as more than just a critique of hermeneutics; it is a manifesto for a new way of experiencing art and engaging with culture. Is interpretation truly the key to unlocking meaning, or can it become a barrier that separates us from the raw, visceral impact of artistic expression? \n \n While anxieties about the over-intellectualization of art existed prior, Sontag’s anthology boldly confronted the mid-20th century's burgeoning critical apparatus. Her arguments resonated against a backdrop of Cold War anxieties and burgeoning consumer culture, a period where everything, including art, seemed ripe for analysis and ideological decoding. Critics and scholars, armed with Freudian psychoanalysis and Marxist theory, increasingly prioritized uncovering "hidden" meanings, often obscuring the aesthetic experience itself. \n \n Sontag's essays challenged this prevailing trend, advocating for a sensuous encounter with art over its systematic dissection. She championed "Erotics of Art," urging a return to feeling, perception, and immediacy. Figures like Antonin Artaud and movements such as Pop Art found in Sontag an articulate advocate, their emphasis on sensory overload and surface aesthetics aligning with her call for a more direct, less mediated relationship with the artwork. The very success of Sontag’s polemic, however, presents an intriguing paradox: can a call against interpretation be itself interpreted? \n \n Against Interpretation continues to provoke and inspire. Its arguments echo in contemporary debates about the accessibility of art, the role of the critic, and the very nature of aesthetic experience in a hyper-mediated world. Used both as a guide for engaging with art and an example of how to engage with art, its central question persists: how can we approach art not as
a puzzle to be solved, but as an experience to be lived?
Sontag's call “Against Interpretation” invites a reconsideration of how we engage with the world, particularly art, in ways that resonate profoundly with philosophical and aesthetic inquiry. The essay implicitly asks, "Should art aim to reveal truth or create beauty?" While some might argue art's primary function is to illuminate truth, Sontag champions an embrace of art's sensory and emotional power, its ability to create beauty and experience. This relates to the question: "Is beauty in the object or the experience?" Her argument suggests that beauty is found within the experience we undergo when engaging with artwork, where the object evokes something authentic within us. \n \n In rejecting interpretation as the sole or even primary means of understanding, Sontag touches upon the very nature of knowledge acquisition, leading us to consider the assertion that "'Some knowledge requires a leap of faith.'" She contends that faith in the experience, the immediacy of the artwork, is more valuable than the intellectual exercise of interpretation. This aligns with a sense that, sometimes, understanding eclipses the emotional power of an object. But it is equally important to note the questions "Is there more to truth than usefulness?" If we simply appreciate art for its usefulness, we may overlook deeper facets hidden beneath the surface, beneath the immediate, that reveal things about the world to us. \n \n Sontag's stance also implicitly questions the nature of artistic intention, “Does intention matter in art?” If the goal is to reduce the artwork to its intended meaning, we may miss the multitude of interpretations possible, the unexpected resonances that arise from the viewer's own experiences. It suggests that the artist's intention is only one factor. To further complicate things, we could ask, "Should we separate artist from artwork?" Sontag certainly suggests th
at viewers should be able to divorce themselves from an interpretation that is created outside of the artwork at times. \n \n This push away from hermeneutics challenges us to contemplate the question: "Is art interpretation subjective?" Sontag's argument suggests that to over-intellectualize, to constantly seek meaning, detracts from the subjective experience of the art itself. It raises questions similar to "'Reality is what we experience, not what lies beyond our experience.'" So then where do we draw the line? Sontag helps us to question how important it is to constantly seek meaning outside of the artwork, especially because “Everyone creates their own version of truth.” What then can we trust in the work? \n \n Sontag's skepticism towards interpretation also invites us to contemplate a more fundamental philosophical question: "Is meaning found or created?" While some believe that meaning is inherent in the world and waiting to be discovered, Sontag implicitly suggests that meaning is created through our engagement with it. Our interpretation of reality is more about creation than discovery, or perhaps a merger of both. \n \n Ultimately, Sontag's "Against Interpretation" is not a rejection of thought but a call for balance. It reminds us that intellectual analysis, while valuable, should not overshadow the raw, emotional, and sensory experience of the world around us. It prompts a reevaluation of what we value, the process of how we glean meaning, and whether the best art can be appreciated simply by existing within the experience of it all.
New York
USA