Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately for some people, many don't understand human nature or the art of manipulation. Men and women throw around words like they're a dime a million. They perform actions based on emotional whims, desecrating what our bodies and minds are capable of. They pay very little attention to what is being said and to what is being omitted. For those who know how to communicate, there are meanings and messages behind their words and their actions that probe for a desired effect.
What I wonder is when does Hemingway's theory of omission go further than intended? How much of what is interpreted in art more of a revelation of the character of the interpreter than of the story itself? I suppose this is what the Rorschach tests are for, but how are you certain that your interpretation of the patient's interpretation is more or less accurate?
Believing that you see the whole iceberg beneath the sea when you may be projecting yourself upon the material can be dangerous. It can mean the death of the art. It can mean the death of the artist. It can mean the death of millions of people if you apply this to certain ancient books.
Leaving the material vague and open to individual interpretation can also be beneficial to the artist. It allows each person to take from it something personal and very real to them, even if it's not the intended effect.
But when do you know that the hills like white elephants are really just hills with the beauty akin to white elephants and not a symbol of a distended and impregnated belly, a giant and impenetrable obstacle?
This goes back to the effect of when people lose control or feel like they are lacking in control, they find false patterns. Locating false patterns may be detrimental to particular conversations and relationships, but they speak volumes about the individual finding false patterns to those who listen.
For the sake of efficient communication, I beg that you attempt to understand the art of manipulation and the nature of humanity.
Candice, I am fascinated by this blog. I especially appreciate the idea of "...communication is an artful method of manipulation." I don't think I've ever specifically thought of 'manipulation' as an artful tool in communication. The definition of manipulation usually carries a negative connotation. At least when I've ever heard it being used. It is refreshing and enlightening to hear this rather 'negative' word having some positive value and purpose.
ReplyDeleteRegarding your thoughts on what the artist's intentional meaning (the story) in his/her art vs. one's interpretation (how much is the revelation of the character of the interpreter) of that art (or nature), it is my thought that perhaps there is the artist's intended story and then there is the interpretation of that story by the viewer or reader.
How one person's words, paintings, or even nature itself affects another is very personal, especially with abstract art and Rorschach prints, as you mentioned.
I think you kind of worked this question out for yourself when you say: "Leaving the material vague and open to individual interpretation can also be beneficial to the artist. It allows each person to take from it something personal and very real to them, even if it's not the intended effect."
As for Rorschach prints--which are, in my view, brilliantly useful (projective) tools to elicit the seer's responses--you ask "...how are you certain that your interpretation of the patient's interpretation is more or less accurate?" My response to this is that the Psychologist gives a battery of tests to the client. These responses must be scored and integrated into the whole. The battery of tests consists of cognitive, objective and projective tests. Personally, I would give a second projective test along with the Rorschach such as the TAT (Thematic Apperception Test)...which are cards with various pictures (people, scenes, etc...not abstracts). The client is then asked to tell a story about the picture(s). Themes will emerge from the projective tests which when interpreted along with the other tests, (including obtaining a thorough psychosocial history--an interview process--a more accurate understanding of the client emerges...thus the Psychologist can be fairly certain he/she is interpreting the client's 'interpretation' of the prints more accurately. Also, and perhaps more importantly to your question each Rorschach card has its own unique “stimulus pull” that elicits a response from viewer. There is also a unique scoring process for all the client’s responses.
So, more or less, the 'correct' interpretation of client's interpretation comes from the Rorschach as a test with scoring abilities, and can be interpreted in combination with a battery of tests to gain a pretty accurate analysis of client’s perceptions. Also, it is important to note that there are no "right or wrong" responses on the Rorschach.
(second half of response below)
Now, what I find most interesting are your thoughts on 'false patterns." This concept, in my view, has been wonderfully woven into these otherwise abstract ideas of how one interprets reality, if you will. I will do more reading on this topic since it is something with which I am not quite familiar--but could perhaps go to 'wishful thinking (?)'
ReplyDeleteCandice, I strongly agree with you that it is most important to verify what one perceives as "reality" with some kind of concrete evidence, unless, of course, it is one's subjective experience of life.
If one is seeing 'patterns' in one's life and one believes these patterns to be of a 'certain reality,' then there must, at some point in time, be concrete evidence to prove it is so. Otherwise one might have to rethink one's interpretation of what one once thought of as having meaning in a 'real' objective sense …that the patterns are not just seen and experienced as projection and wishful thinking...
I love this blog!