Sontag Response

I agree with Susan Sontag’s assertion that people tame art by interpreting so that they can feel comfortable (Sontag par. 19). People naturally make art their own; they subjectify it; they make sense of art to suit their personal lives. To leave art without extracting a meaning makes people uncomfortable because it leaves them with a lingering question. Humans have an innate need to make things logical.

Sontag is right when she says that writers interpret their writing and inject it with meaning. They must inject meaning because leaving it “as is” makes them uncomfortable (par. 20). Every writer sleuths out a theme and edits accordingly. Failure to revise scares most experienced writers because the audience might not “get it.” From my experience as a writer, I have to understand a first draft’s theme an edit accordingly. I feel that I have to chop away at the excess and uncover the meaning so that it won’t suck and/or be misunderstood.
But readers are prone to interpretation as well. Sontag states that “the interpreter” alters text (par. 12). Obviously, the reader interprets it in a way that makes sense to them. Despite there being an intended meaning, I believe the reader acquires the essential meaning behind a tale. That’s where the importance lies: not what the art is to the artist; but what it is to the reader. The artist had something in mind when they created their art, but may see it differently years later, such as the poet E.E. Cummings who edited many of his published poems.

I also agree with Sontag when she states that the modern way of interpreting tears away at art until it finds subtext. That the subtext is, as Sontag says, the true subtext (par. 13), isn’t necessarily true, however. Subtext is equivocal. It’s more a hypothesis than truth. The truth of art is whatever makes sense to the observer. The subtext is all the unanswered questions about the piece. They linger in the mind and never fit into any definite truth.

I agree with Sontag’s assertion that “interpretation is largely reactionary, stifling” (par. 16) and it “poisons our sensibilities” (par. 16). Our worldviews prevent us from seeing and experiencing art for what it is. Objectivity is gone. People must recover their senses (par. 24) so they can respond to art with body and mind rather than bias. People must learn to form opinions of their own, to cast aside other interpretations.

And I agree that people must shred away at the content so the art can be seen for what it is (par. 25) – to see it without bias, not for what they want it to be. Therefore, commentary, as Sontag states, should make the art seem real; and critiques must show what art is instead of showing “what it means.” (par. 26). I agree because people must form their own opinions on a work of art. And to hear or read a critique prior to viewing the piece poisons the human ability to experience it with its senses – without being self-conscious.


Sontag, Susan. “Against Interpretation.” Susan Sontag. 1964. coldbacon.com
15 Sept. 2006. againstinterpretation.html>.