As with any human labeling and interpretation, defining and interpreting art involves arbitrary rules and subjectivity, and, ultimately, there is no objective answer.
.
How to interpret art?
When you critique a movie, do you think it is important what the director thought the movie was about and what she was trying to do? When you read a book or look at a painting is it important for you to know the artist's intention? Have you ever interpreted a work of art, later found out what the artist's was, and found it different than yours? What was your reaction?
These types of 'Which interpretation is correct?' questions touch on topics that have long been important in aesthetics.
Many years ago the prominent literary school of thought was that the most important thing in interpreting and studying a book was the author's intent. This was later rejected, with an influential school of thought entirely dismissing the author's intention and saying all that mattered was the reading of the text itself. Part of this rejection was because no one can reliably know the author's intent. Today, many scholars find both extremes, well, extreme, and fall somewhere in the middle.
A related school said that a work of literature was a reflection or representation of the author's biography. Others rejected this, in part because artists have imaginations, and can make up things.
Another school said that art was to be judged by the audience's reaction. There is some validity to this in that art is a form of communication. Others entirely rejected this idea, saying audience reaction was irrelevant, and a movie should bot be judged by the reaction of whichever random audience viewed it. Again, most people today reject the rigidity of both sides. Many think you can't judge art solely by audience reaction, but that it is relevant.
All these views beg the question of is there a correct way to interpret art? Is there even a correct way to determine which way is the correct way? Art itself is a human-made-up concept.
In the end, a definition of art is subjective and arbitrary.
Does it even matter whether or not something is labeled as art? Does labeling something as art change what it is?
* * * *
Our definitions and appreciation of art involve our philosophies about art and even our politics and religion. People see different purposes for art.
Some see art as personal expression, others want it to support common social ideals and order. Some people want to be merely entertained, while others like to be challenged. Some are open to new ideas and experiences, while others judge art by how it reinforces their preconceived philosophies. Some require historical and factual accuracy in a movie, while others appreciate that facts are sometimes fudged for aesthetic purposes.
Art and aesthetics are often used for social order. Dictators have glorifying statues and murals and set laws for what is acceptable art. Religions use art to promote their beliefs. Artists who deviate from the aesthetic rules are often deemed as rebels and dangerous. Abstract and other modern art have often been labeled as degenerate by the powers that be. Society pressures people to dress and style their hair in certain ways. People willingly dress to belong to or rebel against groups. How you dress says a lot about what you believe.
Religious beliefs influence artistic form. In early Christian culture, the importance was given to the afterlife not life on earth. A result was that early Christian art was not realistic. On the other hand, early Chinese religions were centered on nature and the early Chinese art had greater focus on and realistic depictions of nature.
By Islamic belief, artwork is flawed compared to the work of God. It is thought that attempting to depict the realistic form of an animal or person is religious heresy. Thus Islamic art usually lacks realistic humans and other animals, and is noted for its intricate and elaborate patterns and designs.
Never underestimate how much your taste in art and your philosophy and critiques of art, along with your political, social and religious philosophies, are products of your personality and temperament.
Art perception is both a psychological and an intellectual process, conscious and subconscious, logical and emotional, and we often have conflicting and changing opinions about a work.
We naturally get an initial emotional reaction to a work of art-- influenced by our natural and learned reactions to shapes, colors, textures, etc. Our impression of the work can change with time. We consciously try to figure out what is going on, what is the point, how it is related to other works. Our appreciation and liking can change as we learn how it was made, what materials and techniques were used, as we hear others' views and ideas about the work.
We can like the artwork on one level but not another. We can appreciate the intellectual point but dislike the aesthetics, or be attracted to the design and colors but find the artist's message trite. Our opinion of a work can flip-flop back and forth, depending on which way we consider it.
I hate saying there is the heart and the head in art perception because, of course, the 'heart' is in the mind. But, if I did, you'd get the point. But I won't.
What does it say vis a vis defining and identifying art that your enjoyment and appreciation of a work often changes viewing to viewing or listening to listening?
Assignments
Assignment #1: Answer the question: What is your personal definition of art?
Assignment #2: Pick two works of art that you love or otherwise find profound and explain why you love them or otherwise find them profound. The reasons can include it is a genre or style you like. It could be due to the size or history. It could be due to what it means, the philosophy. If you connect to a character, it relates to your past or depicts your hometown, explain. If you aren't entirely sure why, say so.
Assignment #3: What widely acclaimed art do you not like? Explain why. If it helps, the Mona Lisa doesn't do much for me. And if you pressed me, I might say “I don't know why. It just doesn't. Give me a Botticelli any time.”
Just one thing the assignments demonstrate is that you can't fully explain the reasons behind what you like and dislike. You can love or hate a work and not be entirely sure why.
#1 - I promote the following functional understanding of art - Art is the intentional communication of an experience as an end-in-itself. This is definition is broad, but focuses on how art arises in a social setting, which I believe is the correct node to attach definitional significance.
#2 - Pollock's #28 at the Met because, to me it signifies the basic interconnections of reality & Du
Champs' "Nude Descending Stairway" (there are actually a few of them) because they capture three dimensional movement in a two-dimensional space.
#3 - I have never been a fan of Lichtenstein. This may have nothing to do with the art and more with the fact that I never got into graphic novels. I don't care for Greek Orthodox Iconography because the portraits are unnecessarily flat and the children all seem to look like miniature adults. As a bonus I don't care for the work of Grandma Moses because stubbornly resists conforming to a sense of perspective.
Excellent