An Addendum to On Art
Previously I discussed the value of various forms of art and the idea that no interpretation is uniquely correct, that works of art in nature are no more significant than the works of great painters in terms of how they relate to our lives. I have recently come to the further conclusion that although a piece of art may not carry any single meaning, it may carry a specific set of meanings. Of course, the number of meanings within this set is infinite, but the variations are still contained within a unique set (just as there are infinitely many numbers between 1 and 2, yet none of them is 3). Of course, despite being unique, this set is undefinable in mere words.
As a result, each piece of art likely has indeed an objective meaning, but not in the sense that it can be scribbled down on a napkin or in an essay or in a thousand volumes. Rather, the meaning is objective in the sense that it is the summation of every possible interpretation of the work of art. Therefore, we do not come closer to understanding a piece of art by narrowing down our views on it and rigidly defining our personal interpretation. We come closer to understanding it by seeing it from as many perspectives as possible, by looking at every interpretation anyone may devised. We ought not dismiss a single one, for each is indeed part–as small a part as some may be–of the whole, of the objective nature, and the more that we can add together in our summation, the closer we come to understanding that objective nature.
If we were to graph each interpretation of the objective meaning, our graph would not only have infinitely many points, but would extend in infinitely many dimensions. It’s easier to visualize, however, in just two.
Two-dimensional representation of infinitely-dimensioned objective meaning:
