The Implications our current Perception of Interpretation have

Ephrat Huss and Haim Maor in the University of Illinois did a science-art experiment of sorts in 2014. In this experiment, they took a fine arts teacher, an art therapist, and a social worker and had them comment on student-made art pieces. In their article listed on JSTOR, they meticulously described how each of their commenting sessions was done independently and each person participated alone without the other two present. Their findings were wonderful.

The fine art teacher took a look at the piece and noted the technical aspect of the puzzle pieces, saying that it made the whole piece viable and interesting to look at. The art therapist said that the puzzle pieces gave the whole art piece something that could be moved around and played with and spoke to the overall message. The social worker said that the piece really spoke about the broken identity we all experience today. Each person had a completely different aspect of the piece and what it's implications were. 

From this, we can clearly see that each person has something to contribute when interpreting the piece as a whole. No one's comments overlapped with another. 

Now, take a look at this piece. A grand majority of the first world knows this painting as the Mona Lisa, painted by Leonardo DaVinci in the 1500's. Everyone knows about it and near everyone comments about its historical importance in art history. Those who make further comments on the piece would mostly comment on her facial expression and how her slight smile says something about her internal feelings while being painted. There is a general consensus about the meaning of the painting. Why is it that most people have similar thoughts about the painting? Why is it that we put so much thought into a piece of art that is relatively similar to each other portrait that was made during the Renaissance, and the tens of thousands of other portraits that were painted afterward? Who says that this particular painting deserves the huge crowd it gets each day in the Louvre? 

Joe Kincheloe might have some of the answers to this. In his article titled Says Who? Who Decides What Is Art? he claims that art critics drive everything. He claims that a few art critics come together and create criteria of what defines "good art," and the masses follow their thought process because we give them the agency to do so. I agree with him. I believe that we willingly stunt our interpretation on art and take "the easy way out" by conforming to the words said by the people we call professionals. 

By allowing ourselves to listen and follow the words said by professionals, we really prevent ourselves from looking at other art. Some people go to the Louvre to see the Mona Lisa rather than to see beautiful art. Maybe it is time to take a moment and really make our own thoughts on the Mona Lisa, and take more time to look at the other pieces in the exhibit. Take time to look at the lesser-known pieces of art and really let yourself make new conclusions and interpretations.