The Observer Effect

There is something in quantum physics called the observer effect.  What this means is that in the very act of observing matter it behaves in a measurably different way at the sub-atomic level.  So, you might ask, what does this have to do with anything?  Thinking about this concept in physics has got me thinking about the interaction of audience and art and how this creates very different works of art for different people.  For simplicity's sake, let's limit our discussion to painting or photography.  The viewer is confronted with a two-dimensional representation of something.  What are they to make of what they are looking at?  Many factors come into play that determine the viewer's experience and understanding of what they are contemplating.

First of all, the viewer's knowledge of other works of art helps create a context for what they are looking at.  They try and categorize what they see based on what they have seen in the past.  Human-beings are hardwired to make sense of the world in this way, compare and contrast, if you will.

Second, the emotional state of the viewer at that specific moment also comes into play.  Emotion adds a particular dimension to the individual's experience of just about anything.  We have the expressions in English of someone feeling "blue",  implying that emotion colors  experience.  If the image under consideration has violent subject matter, for example, some might recoil in fear, others might find themselves strangely excited by it.  The possible emotional responses to a work of art are almost unlimited, and can and do change over time.

Finally, the viewer will often try and decode the subject matter, or ponder other aspects of the work if it is non-representational, such as the formal artistic elements.  These amount to attempts to get beneath the mere surface of the image, or to ponder why the artist wants to keep us restricted to the surface itself (and that, in its own way, becomes part of what the image is about).

Some of these responses can be directed by the artist, but many of them are independent of his/her volition.  What then should be an artist's response to viewer interpretation, especially when it seems to depart from the intended meaning the artist consciously  puts into the work?  At what point does interpretation violate the intention of the creator of the image?  What ownership does an artist have of the meaning of his/her work once it has been presented to the viewer as a finished work of art?  I think it is a good idea to listen to what artists have to say about their work.  It gives insights into the artwork that otherwise might be unavailable, especially when what is under discussion is the artist's personal  relationship to the work of art and the concerns that gave rise to it.  But does this necessarily negate or diminish the interpretations of viewers who are not privy to this information?  I think not.  Perhaps we are discussing two different things here:  the artist's intention in creating the work of art, and the viewer's response to that work.  One can ask if the artist has to offer additional verbal clues as to the meaning of the work, supplementing what is captured in the image itself, can that truly be regarded as part of the meaning of the artwork?

I certainly don't have any definitive answers to these questions.  But it is instructive to contemplate issues such as these when viewing and interpreting works of art.  Artist intention versus viewer interpretation creates a very interesting tension, one that if examined with attention and an open mind deepens audience experience of any work of art.