Understanding how to properly "read" a painting remains one of the most challenging questions facing art enthusiasts and gallery visitors today. Art historian James Marriott recently explored this complex topic on his podcast Cultural Capital, questioning whether viewers need specific instruction to look at and comprehend artwork. The answer, according to experts, is both yes and no, highlighting the fundamental difficulties we face when trying to interpret art in modern gallery settings.
The primary challenge begins with how galleries present artwork to the public. Modern museums and galleries encourage us to view art in an artificial environment, displaying masses of paintings that have been stripped from their original contexts. At London's National Gallery, for example, most of the artwork created before the 18th century was originally designed to hang in religious settings. In their original context, these paintings were subconsciously understood by viewers who shared the deep religious beliefs they depicted, making interpretation almost automatic rather than analytical.
When artwork is removed from its intended environment and presented as educational elements in art history rather than expressions of faith, the paintings can appear puzzling or even off-putting to modern audiences. This disconnect between original purpose and current presentation creates significant barriers to understanding. The most powerful art experiences often occur when viewers encounter works in their intended settings, where the original context remains intact.
A profound example of this contextual understanding occurred when a priest at a Venice church explained Giovanni Bellini's Frari Triptych from 1488. For the priest, the painting served as a tangible representation of Jesus Christ, the Virgin Mary, and surrounding saints. The artwork represented and reinforced his faith, hanging in the same location it was created for and displayed in its original frame. After more than 500 years, the painting remained as fresh and purposeful for him as it had been for his predecessors centuries earlier.
Contemporary art provides another illustration of how context shapes interpretation. Banksy's recent graffiti on the side of London's Royal Courts of Justice depicts a placard-holding protester being beaten by a gavel-wielding judge. Current audiences can easily interpret this image because they are living within the context of its creation. Just days before the artwork appeared, hundreds of protesters in London had been arrested for supporting Palestine Action, a controversially banned organization.
However, if this same Banksy image were to hang in a gallery 200 years from now, the interpretation task would become significantly more difficult. Museum labels would need to explain every aspect of the image, from the meaning of gavels to the historical significance of Gaza. Future political environments might be so different that the very concept of protest could be unfamiliar to viewers, making the artwork's message incomprehensible without extensive explanation.
Art historical interpretation methods have changed dramatically over time, reflecting evolving academic approaches and cultural priorities. Seventy-five years ago, when Ernst Gombrich published his influential work "The Story of Art," the primary purpose of interpretation was aesthetic. Scholars focused on discerning artistic styles and making attributions as a means of organizing the canon of art history. This approach emphasized looking at pictures rather than "reading" them for deeper meanings.
Beginning in the 1970s, a significant reaction against purely aesthetic interpretation emerged. New scholarly methods developed as art historians became increasingly interested in art's broader contexts, including social, economic, political, and gender-related factors. This shift transformed picture interpretation into a tool for understanding the broader historical periods in which artworks were created.
While this contextual approach offers many valuable insights, it remains vulnerable to subjective interpretation, particularly regarding political matters. Marxist art historians like John Berger argued that art reveals the true nature of capitalist history and reflects contemporary conditions. Berger believed that clear understanding of the present would enable scholars to ask the right questions about the past.
However, many art historians prefer approaches that focus less on contemporary perspectives and more on historical understanding. The most effective way to interpret a painting involves understanding the context in which it was originally created, rather than the context in which modern viewers encounter it. This historical approach suggests that sometimes the best method for understanding the past requires temporarily forgetting present-day concerns and perspectives, allowing artwork to speak from its own time period rather than forcing it to address contemporary issues.
