Is There Really a Hidden Meaning?

There is little doubt that art has been used throughout the ages to communicate various societal issues, but this is not without its problems in deciphering it. While the viewers approach artworks expecting to find out what the author intended when creating the work, they still need to have the expected experience. The inherent complexity of art lies in its duality: essentially a part of the artist, and at the same time, highly arbitrary and can be endlessly read and understood by the viewer. This raises another critical question: Truly, does the act of viewing successfully capture what an artist feels is important enough about the artwork to convey? The problem of the specificity of art and incomprehension by an audience is represented in this situation by the significant conflict of the play Red by Alfred Molina, which presents the life of the abstract expressionist painter Mark Rothko.

At the core of the novel Red, the author tries to address and defend the very core of his painting while simultaneously being frustrated with the idea of consumption. Rothko painted abstract images to elicit severe emotional reactions, yet in his eyes, such people were mere reductionists who did not get the whole picture. The relations between Rothko and his assistant, Ken, shed questions regarding the possible practicality of presenting the function of artwork. Whereas Ken puts pressure on Rothko to relinquish his dogmatic approach, Red discusses the issue of interpretation on whether the audience can understand the artists’ objective by just viewing the art.

Observing art does not enable one to determine what the work’s creator considers significant about the piece. Rothko’s progression in Red exemplifies this chasm because his conceptions of meaning-making are only part of the process; the viewer also has a say in making meaning from his work. The duality is only heightened by the more abstract nature of Rothko’s work. An artist might even see their work as void of intended meaning, yet viewers often project their own emotions and ideas onto it, creating meanings entirely independent of the artist’s original perspective and intention. 

Abstract art, as a general concept, is complex to interpret broadly. While representational art produces fairly clear images or stories, abstract art always has something that one has to define. The openness renders the work particularly vulnerable to interpretative distortion as people impose their feelings, biography, worldview, and tastes onto the content. Red is a play scripted by Alfred Molina in which Mark Rothko incarnated the feelings of an abstract artist who is frustrated with the viewers of his art (Hosseini, 2019). The play demonstrates how Rothko’s monumental abstract canvases continue to be misjudged by the audience as mere provocations for an intense emotional response instead of the art as an emotionally rousing endeavor that it was supposed to be.

One of the central tensions in Red is Rothko’s concern about how others would misuse his creation. He painted depressing paintings, termed his paintings timeless tragedies, and said that his paintings should surround people and make them think. However, owing to the highly abstract nature of his work, audiences can, by and large, end up missing the point entirely or engaging superficially with the work, and draw very sharply the distinction between what Sachs intended and what audiences subsequently received (Rogala et al., 2020). Rothko’s anti-commercial stance resonates from his condemnation of the average viewer’s superficiality as he shuns simplicity, maintaining that abstract art needs more than a glance; it asks for engagement, most of which the audience is unwilling to give.

The discrepancies between intention and perception are revealed in Rothko’s relationships with his assistant, Ken, in Red, which bears testament to this division. Hosseini (2019) argues that Ken is the voice of the newly changed audience member who finds it hard to parse through Rothko’s flowery language when describing his pieces. In the play, Ken questions Rothko’s views and points out that the artist’s desire to dictate the meaning of his artwork could be more fruitful. The dynamic reveals the struggle between authorial control and the consumer’s ludic freedom of meaning-making meaning-making (Botelho, 2019). Just as Ken does not get frustrated with Rothko’s painted surfaces, Rothko is frustrated with the audience that needs to get the gravity of the work done. The problem is even amplified by the highly abstracted nature of Rothko’s paintings. Lacking precise shapes and histories, viewers are left alone to make their own meanings that differ sharply from the artist’s purpose of the work. The problem of making one’s own meaning is illustrated in Red when Rothko talks about the murals he painted for Four Seasons restaurant. He sees them as a kind of respectful solemnity, almost venerated (Hosseini, 2019). Then, ironically, he steps away from the paintings, feeling that they will be confined to somewhere they do not deserve to be. The decision carries the idea by Rothko that abstract artwork is highly susceptible to misuse if put in the wrong setting. This is as much the beauty of abstract art as it is the bane: an artwork can mean a lot, but it can also mean anything, including nothing at all. 

On the one hand, it encourages people to get involved with feelings and ideas, making the play extremely personal. On the other hand, it seems almost impossible to understand the particular intention of the artist (Soriano-Colchero & López-Vílchez, 2019). Therefore, misinterpretation created by abstract art speaks volumes about several problems artists encounter in making others understand what they are trying to convey.

Art is never created in a vacuum since the interpretations that need to be made are as much a part of the audience as they are of the artist. It is only human to judge whatever one comes across, especially in the arts. When encountering abstract work, it brings experiences, feelings, and even prejudices (Soriano-Colchero & López-Vílchez, 2019). Audience projection is the phenomenon in which the user envisions an intended viewer for their post; this is a key factor in Alfred Molina’s Red. Using the interaction of the main characters – Mark Rothko and his assistant Ken, the author shows the viewers’ interference and how they interpret work ignoring the author’s purpose.

Audience projection emerges as one of the central motifs in Red because Rothko despises the ignorance of those who do not contemplate his art. He complains that spectators visit his canvases with a specific focus, seeing only the beauty and feeling only pleasure. To Rothko, thie misinterpretation is a betrayal; he expected his works to require a viewer to think and many are not willing to do so. However, Rothko needs help finding solace because everyone who views his work comes with their perception.

In this discussion, self-effacing Ken is the foil to Rothko. At the start, Ken needs clarification about what to make of Rothko’s paintings, making him the audience’s representative. His questions and challenges make Rothko question the limitation of controlling how art could be viewed or perceived. For a time, Ken seems to be bending the rules to support his argument that by denying other possibilities of reading his work, Rothko is negating the importance of art (Botelho, 2019). Ken then vehemently posts that once they are done, art is no longer a private entity of the artist but a public property. Thie particular exchange illustrates the difference between Rothko’s projection and his work and the importance of comprehension for him.

The dynamics of the relationship between Rothko and Ken demonstrate that people’s experience always influences the reception of art. As in many other cases, when Ken narrates his story of loss starts, it becomes clear that he is learning to interpret Rothko’s art through the prism of his suffering. This moment is the confrontation with the fact of projection, which, despite the author’s inspiration, is impossible to overcome – the audience always and without exception will interpret the work based on its feelings (Soriano-Colchero & López-Vílchez, 2019). That is not always a flawed process; it just gives people an opportunity to embrace art at a very emotional level and forget about the meaning of the work created by the artist, even if the perception of such work is quite different from the true meaning of the art piece. Primarily in Red, however, the argument of audience projection emphasizes the idea that it is impossible to arrive at that one perfect interpretation of art. All works of art are the way they are, as much by the viewer as by the artist, and Rothko’s paintings are no different. This is how one remains in the conversation and the proof of art’s challenge to the artist’s desire for control over their work.

Tension also illustrates how an artist’s meanings of work can differ from the actual perception; this great philosophical conflict inspires Alfred Molina’s Red. The split brings out crucial issues of the ownership of art, its purpose, and its occurrences in human life. As much as artists such as Mark Rothko pour meaning and purpose into their work, each person will interact with art personally. Rogala et al. (2020) believe this contradiction concerns the difference between the author’s intention and those who enjoy the work of art, representing a more extensive discussion of whether meaning is found in the work or the viewer. Regardless of that intention given or not given to a piece of art by an artist, there will always be something the audience see’s that the artist doesn’t.

In Red, Rothko represents the classic traditional artist type, insisting that his creation must be received as was intended. Unsurprisingly, he perceives his paintings as relics, objects created to instigate thought and feelings. For Rothko, the viewer has to embrace the art as intended to be to see its heaviness and hear its message with openness. The perspective bears testimony to the conventional view that the artist owns the work and is free to do what they want with it. However, the insistence on control is also traceable to Rothko’s belief. However, Rothko’s assistant disagrees with this; he opined that once the creation, particularly art, is made, it is not completely the property of the artist that gave it life (Hosseini, 2019). For Ken, art is an experience that involves a democratic approach to engagement with the piece of art. He proposed that people should come to a particular piece of art with their own lives, feelings, and knowledge to apprehend the same as multiple. The concept stems from theories in short – meaning is relative and depends on the interaction between the artwork and the person experiencing the art piece. In Ken’s mind, art is a constantly changing thing that man needs because its impact is personal and goes through constant changes.

The division is at the base of two existential art theories; hence, it is a duality. In this respect, Rothko subscribes to some key postmodern principle of artistic authority, that art has an intrinsic and universal meaning. On the other hand, Ken reflects postmodernism’s love for almost complete subjectivism in that meaning is made in context with the work’s audience (Hosseini, 2019). These contrasting views are apparent reminders that art is an individual creative representation and a social activity. Therefore, Red proves that there can and must be a duality of sides between the artist and the spectator. As much as this may irk the Rothko’s of future generations, the split guarantees that art stays relevant, diverse, and unmistakably people. It is by occupying this zone of the intentional object that art attains its most significant force.

The role of an artist or an observer and the conception of art might be debated by viewing Alfred Molina’s Red. The dynamic is good for illustrating misinterpretation and the lack of authority once meaning is set free and work is public. On this basis, the observed division has several consequences and affects the work of artists, art lovers, and art creation. The existential and psychological tensions between Rothko and his assistant, Ken in Red, include these broader issues and represent a view on art in human society.

On one of the essential aspects pointed out within the given discussion, it is possible to state that art is rather individualistic. In trying to state some profound truths or to provoke certain feelings in people, artists such as Rothko should realize that one cannot fit in the heads of everyone since, indeed, variety is the spice of life (Anghel, 2020). Audiences approach artworks with their individual experiences imposed by age, nationality, and mood on the artworks. The subjectivity makes art-looking practice a highly individual reproductive of art interpretation that has no objective relation to the intention of the original creator of that artwork (Rogala et al., 2020). To some people, this disagreement enriches the notion of art, turning it into the kind of medium that can be given a new meaning infinitely. 

The democratization of art interpretation can be viewed as a threat to the artist’s authority. The war described in Red reflects the artist’s frustration in his desire to keep the audience from imposing on him what he does not please, which comes from the confinement of symbols to a narrower range of interpretations than that provided by means of abuse. Anghel (2020) argues that he also sees misunderstanding as not understanding his seriousness about his art direction, which is a sentiment echoed by several artists in all fields. This raises important questions about the ownership of meaning: Is a particular piece of art property of the artist who created it or property of the people who utilize it? The opposition poses aesthetical challenges, thus going against the popular hegemonic cultural belief in the authorial control of art, focusing on the presence of meanings as a collective effort.

Secondly, one of them, which is at the heart of postmodernist art, is the location of art in consumer society. Rothko’s anger at his paintings’ commercialization epitomizes the problem of preserving art’s essence in an environment where music seems to prefer monetary value. In Red, the Four Seasons murals are reduced to such a symbol that creates an idea of how this culture most likely viewed the works as an aesthetic subject when separated from the environment they were initially designed for. Rogala et al. (2020) argue that it is a topical battle today because art now has to contend for the audience’s attention through several layers of technology and in disjointed bites. For instance, through social media platforms, the dissemination of artworks and their understanding has become obsessed with the picture’s simplicity or the hashtag.

Nevertheless, alienation of the artist from the observer is the latter’s strength and the possibility of forming and developing the art. While the direct meaning of art is relevant in the context of the artist’s statements and ideas, the artwork per se ceases to be merely an object of its creator. It gathers various_ interpretations from numerous people, making art a living being. The openness ensures that art, in its eternity, always tends to impact the viewers at the intended time and space in ways the artist could not wholly predict (Rogala et al., 2020). For example, the works of Rothko, after the author’s death, make people get aesthetic emotions, that is, make people think and feel after hearing or seeing art, even if the work is a painting.

Ultimately, how art is created, displayed, and contextualized can make the relationship between the artist and the audience, bringing them closer or setting a gap between the two. It is the role of museums, galleries, educators, or anyone in between to help facilitate these views while introducing contemplations that might inform the viewers’ interpretation, even though they have the right to their opinions. In Red, when Rothko decides to remind everyone that art has to be taken seriously, he prefers his paintings to be solemn to a fault (Anghel, 2020). However, Ken’s comments regarding interpretations of Rothko’s work indicate that interpretation cannot be limited by how the creator envisions it.

Red, by Alfred Molina, is a provocative examination of one of philosophy’s most enduring questions on the extent of whether the artist or writer is responsible for a piece’s interpretation and overall meaning. In Mark Rothko’s fight for the conceptual ownership of the art and Ken’s assertiveness on the right to individual interpretation, the play presents the play/film’s core narrative conflict, creation and reception. The division reemphasizes that art is a matter of interpretation as much as creativity, observation, and feeling. The general stakes of the divide establish art as an act of the autonomous artist and an event of common assembly. That is why, for example, Rothko can regard misinterpretation as betrayal while the fact of projection makes art perpetually unfolding, vital, and capable of addressing people of any age or culture. Finally, Red reveals that the role of a work of art is not in telling the truth or making references but in inciting, questioning, and connecting. 

References

Anghel, F. (2020). Commonsensical Choices in John Logan’s Red. Philologia, 18(1), 31-40.

Botelho, T. (2019). … one part life and nine parts the other. Hungarian Journal of English and American Studies (HJEAS), 25(1), 129–142.

Hosseini, S. (2019). A Treat towards an Artist‘s Psyche: A Psychoanalytical Reading of‗ Red’by John Logan. International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies, 7(4), 34–40.

Rogala, J., Bajno, B., & Wroble, A. (2020). A hidden message: Decoding artistic intent. Psych Journal, 9(4), 507-512.Soriano-Colchero, J. A., & López-Vílchez, I. (2019). The role of perspective in contemporary artistic practice. Cogent Arts & Humanities, 6(1), 1614305.