Wolfgang Iser (b. 1926, Germany – d. 2007, Germany)
Theory of Aesthetic Response, 1967-

Just what the doctor prescribed. I will not have to write a new theory of art after all, at least not for the time being. Peculiarly, most of the things I need or would consider doing, seem to have been done some 50 years ago. On the other hand, it is also quite peculiar that I have only come across Iser’s work now. I can only wonder if my contemporaries just don’t find him appealing, if he was forgotten by chance or if it is related to his positioning within literature rather than art at large. And, indeed, there is something paradoxical about me finding the theory enabling me to attach my practice to the body of the history of art in the field of literature of all places, while otherwise vehemently protesting conceptualisation of art as language.

Anyway, he speaks my language: “[i]n literary works … the message is transmitted in … that the reader ‘receives’ it by composing it” (Iser 1993, 31). This totally reflects my position on aesthetic encounters at large – the artist provides some stimuli, some selection of materials or devices, but it is the audience that does the job in “extracting”, or even generating meaning of the work. Yes, many artists prefer to see it the other way round, or work with the opposite intention in mind – to “plant” a meaning or a message into the work for the audience to “discover” or “decode”. And, sure thing, as long as the artist and their audience are schooled in the same tradition, agreeing on the same rules of the game, that is a sufficiently functional model. Nevertheless, it is quite often the audience is not “getting” the meaning intended anyway, or make their own interpretations that not necessarily match the artist’s. So “my model” can be applicable to those cases as well. But if some artists or audiences may lament such mismatch as a failure, I’d rather celebrate it as creative victory. I find it much more interesting to consider art as activity that liberates thinking and stimulates generation of new ideas rather than focusing on polishing communication efficiency that there are other, more specialised disciplines for.

“To conceive of representation not in terms of mimesis but in terms of performance” (ibid., 236) is another good suggestion, pointing to the performativity in reconciliation of artistic propositions with lived experiences that is needed in order to create coherent meaning bridging over the initial gap between the two, between fiction and reality.

I could keep quoting forever, but my main takeaway is in Iser’s analysis of how good fiction typically provides reader with multiple perspectives and fragments of narrative intentionally interspaced with blanks and perspectival shifts, forcing reader to make active choices and establish some form of coherence among all those bits and pieces that would always be personal, as it would always take personal reference framework to fill in the blanks and make meaningful connections between the fragments, just as choice of perspective would reflect personal preferences etc. The art is thus happening in this durational performative act of the audience trying to reconcile what has been provided them by the artist with their lived experience at large.

References

Iser, Wolfgang. 1980 [1978]. The Act of Reading. Baltimore & London: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Iser, Wolfgang. 1993 [1989]. Prospecting. Baltimore & London: The Johns Hopkins University Press.