As art teachers, we are often faced with students who struggle to interpret an artwork. Often, it is not because of their lack of ability but rather because they are hesitant to share their ideas out of fear of judgment and ridicule. This is a very unfortunate situation that many talented artists are forced to face on a daily basis.
As an educator, one of my main goals is to help my students overcome this obstacle and be confident enough to share their interpretations with the class. In my opinion, there are two steps that must be taken to accomplish this task; 1) objective analysis and 2) subjective writing. Both of these steps require the student to take time, reflect, connect and finally share their personal opinions about an artwork.
Often, a great starting point for understanding an artwork is determining what features of it stand out. To do this, have the students begin by observing the work and making a list of all the details that catch their eye. From there, they can start analyzing what those details mean and why they are important to the piece.
In addition to noticing the objective details of an artwork, it is also important to understand the historical context in which the artist created it. For example, Edward Hopper’s Nighthawks was created in 1942, amidst the socio-political turmoil of World War 2. To understand this, ask the students to research what was happening in history within the 10-year range around the painting’s creation. Once the research is done, have them write a summary of their findings.
There are some definitions of art that rely on the idea that art is like a clade (a group of organisms that shares a common ancestor). In this view, all works of art belong to an artworld and share prehistoric art ancestors. The problem with this type of definition is that it is bottom-up and resolutely anthropocentric.
A more progressive sort of definition relies on a hybrid concept that incorporates both the traditional aesthetic properties of an artwork and some art-relational ones. This approach is able to address the problems associated with both of the above types of definitions. However, it is important to note that the hybrid concept may still be gynocentric. This is because some theorists have suggested that different genders have systematically unique artistic styles, methods and modes of appreciating art. However, it is important to note that these claims are currently under debate and do not constitute a settled theory.