In this essay, the various ways of approaching a text will be explored with a specific emphasis on interpretation. Interpretation is both significant and controversial, and two types, hermeneutics and erotics of art, will be examined. The essay ‘Against Interpretation’ will also be referenced as a major source for this discussion. Susan Sontag famously proposed that “In place of a hermeneutics we need an erotics of art,” and this statement will guide our essay and shape the direction of our discussion.
The text will begin by discussing the theory of hermeneutics, which is one of the oldest interpretation theories in the world. It will then explore the problem of hermeneutics as discussed in ‘Against Interpretation’ and serve as a bridge connecting to the section titled ‘An erotics of art’. The term ‘hermeneutics’ originates from the Greek word ‘????????’, meaning ‘interpreter’, and is associated with the Greek god Hermes.
In Greek myth, he is an interpreter and his job is to distribute messages to the gods. The original meaning of it is the process of translation. Hermeneutics is one of the interpretation theories and a method to understand and classify the meanings of texts. In hermeneutics, the manifest content (all observable phenomena) need to be probed and set aside to uncover the true meaning (the latent content). It focuses on analyzing the content to find the ‘true’ meanings in order to approach a text. It is also embraced by the doctrines of Marx and Freud. Additionally, it proclaims to be the most objective way to approach a text.
The understanding of a text’s inner life involves considering various factors, including the authors’ background, grammar, style, and structure. History plays a crucial role in delving into hermeneutics. At first, hermeneutics was used in studying the Bible, known as biblical hermeneutics. Jewish Rabbis and Church Fathers utilized different methods to interpret the Bible’s content, seeking deeper meanings beyond the literal words and messages from God. Over time, hermeneutics expanded its application to interpreting other texts like literature and art.
During the Enlightenment, there was a shift in interpreting texts to meet the needs of the “modern” world. This new method not only changed text analysis but also influenced traditional Greek art theory. Influential scholars like Plato and Aristotle stressed the significance of examining content (truth and usefulness) when analyzing artworks. Due to its historical development, hermeneutics became the primary approach for interpreting texts.
In her work “Against Interpretation” in the 1960s, Susan Sontag addressed the issues of hermeneutics in America. She argued against the interpretation methods of Marx and Freud, which she believed were an impoverishing and meaningless way of digging into a text to find a supposed true sub-text. Sontag saw this approach as the intellect’s revenge on art, depleting the world in order to construct a shadow world of meanings. According to her, humans fear the unknown and interpretive methods serve to tame and make art more manageable and conformable. However, she criticized the over-interpretation problem that emerged in 1960s America, where many scholars applied Marx and Freud’s interpretive approaches excessively. Sontag saw this kind of interpretation as more of an aggressive reaction rather than a liberating act. To illustrate this, she referenced Kafka’s work to further explore the issue of over-interpretation.
Susan Sontage criticized the interpretation of the work, stating that it was viewed by multiple interpreters as a social allegory, a psychoanalytic allegory, and a religious allegory. She argued that these interpretations created a separate world with numerous meanings that overshadowed the actual text, leading to the destruction of the original text and indicating a dissatisfaction with the work. Sontage’s example demonstrates her dislike for Hermeneutics as an approach to a text, as it promotes over-interpretation. Additionally, she believed that Hermeneutics oversimplifies interpretation by solely focusing on content while disregarding form.
According to Susan Sontag, the idea of content is often viewed as an obstacle or annoyance. It can be seen as a kind of philistinism – both subtle and not-so-subtle. Nevertheless, when content is excessively emphasized, it obstructs the complete fulfillment of the interpretation project. Sontag argues that criticism’s purpose should be to uncover how something exists, rather than its meaning. She asserts that interpretation should not solely concentrate on textual content but should instead embrace a more diverse approach to comprehending them at a deeper level. Sontag suggests that texts hold numerous treasures beyond their content that are worth exploring. She criticizes hermeneutics for prioritizing content over form, which hampers people from truly seeing and appreciating texts. However, Sontag does not wholly reject interpretation (hermeneutics), as she believes there is still value in certain interpretations.
In agreement with Nietzsche’s words, she acknowledged the importance of interpretation and stressed its significance. She cautioned against an incorrect approach that can ruin a text and take its place. However, she clarified that works of art can still be described or summarized, but the key lies in how it is done. To tackle the challenges of hermeneutics, she proposed an alternative method—an erotics of art—that allows us to explore a text on a deeper level. This approach encourages us to “see more, hear more, feel more” without overshadowing its original intent. It prioritizes emotions and senses over logical reasoning and suggests that we should unlock pleasure in interpretation by following our instincts rather than being bound by rationality (which represents human nature).
The texts are described as body and people use their sensory organs to interpret them instead of mind and have feeling of pleasure under the erotics of art. In the erotics of art, the standard of form is higher than content because content is not important at all. Form including the design, styles, structure, and the pattern of a work of art and it is often used to describe the appearance of a work of art. In this interpretation way, form is described as a naked body and content is described as the mind of this naked human. Under the erotics of art, the process of interpretation is similar to the process of having sex.
The process involves using the body (form) as the communication tool, rather than the mind (content). It is absurd to try to understand a person solely through their mind, disregarding their physical presence. The sensuality of art can revive the sensory experience of the artwork, just like how a bare body (form) can elicit sensory sensations in people. Additionally, the eroticism of art enhances transparency by reducing the focus on content. Susan Sontage argues that this leads to “experiencing the luminousness of the thing in itself, of things being what they are.” This interpretive approach can deepen our understanding of a text and increase transparency on a profound level.
The complexity of the human brain makes it challenging to comprehend human thought, even for individuals. In contrast, studying the body is easier since it is visible. For example, if a person has a visible wound on their body, it is simple to determine that they are injured. However, understanding why they were hurt becomes difficult if they don’t share the reason because thoughts cannot be directly read. Likewise, form is more understandable than content and employing this approach enables deeper exploration of text, resulting in enhanced transparency.
The pleasure of interpreting art lies in its erotic nature, often neglected. When it comes to hermeneutics, interpreters must engage in extensive research and analysis to unravel the meaning of a text. This can be a tedious and time-consuming process that impedes the development of new interpretations, as critics tend to fixate on familiar aspects like the authors’ backgrounds and ideas. Nonetheless, interpretation does not necessarily demand specialized knowledge; it can also be approached through sensory perception.
Because of the direct manner in which it is interpreted, interpreters derive fulfillment and joy from the interpretive process. The interpretation of artistic erotics is subjective and stands in contrast to hermeneutics, as considerations of content are dissolved into form. Susan Sontage argues that a descriptive vocabulary, rather than a prescriptive one, is needed to discuss form. She believes that the best criticism is unique and not a duplicate. This uniqueness arises from the use of different descriptive words in various critiques, as these words stem from the senses.
The interpretation of a text can vary among individuals. One person may find the text to be excellent while another person may perceive it as poor. The basis for criticism is derived from one’s own emotions, sensations, and perceptions rather than external information or others’ interpretations. This approach implies that there should be a greater separation between texts and individuals. The suggestion is to remove any specific meanings, as the allure of a text lies in its mystique. It’s comparable to a woman wearing gauze clothing, which can ignite desire in men because they perceive her as sexy.
The interpreters engage in a playful manipulation of words, particularly focusing on the faults or fissures between them. Their emphasis is on the interpretive process itself – the sensory experiences and pleasure derived from interpretation – rather than on uncovering the true meanings of a text. As a result, the author believes interpreters should prioritize the manifest content over the latent content, as attempting to excavate the true meanings often leads to the destruction of a text within the modern system of interpretation.
She believes that the interpretation approach of the eroticism of art is superior to the approach of hermeneutics, and therefore concludes in her article “Against Interpretation” that “In place of a hermeneutics we need an erotics of art”. This essay discusses two approaches to analyzing a text – hermeneutics and the erotics of art. First, the essay explores the theory of hermeneutics, which focuses on content to uncover the hidden meanings and applies an objective approach. The second part of the essay highlights several issues with hermeneutics, such as over-interpretation and oversimplified criticism due to a neglect of form. The third part introduces the alternative theory of an erotics of art, which prioritizes emotions, senses, and subjectivity. It diverges from hermeneutics by focusing on form and the relationship between text and interpreters. The erotics of art not only tackles the problems posed by hermeneutics but also restores sensory experiences, pleasure, and transparency.
