The attempt to interpret modern art comes from different approaches and moves along several lines of thought. Generally speaking, together these approaches leave no doubt that a linguistic explanation is possible and legitimate. This assumption, which forms a bridge between lord and picture, is a decisive, often uncontested problem of aesthetic logic. Spectators should watch out for the traps and fallacies. They may expect that the clear statement a work of art unambiguously makes for them, the unseemingly apparent interpretation of the work, leads back to a lack of understanding of the "real" thoughts and precise statement of the artistic "message." This expectation by the spectator is deceptive. It makes a fertile discussion of the interpretation of a work of art more difficult rather than easier. The thesis of this article claims that through the work of art, modern art does not make reality readily available but is a component part of a wandering culture. The form of our spoken communication is always, at first, produced anew. Although the socially conditioned structure of art allows itself to be explicated, the statement of each artwork does not.
© The Author