SECTION 1 - via - School of Visual Arts

There are several different philosophical theories concerning the interpretation of a work of art.
Traditional interpretation theory has argued that the intention of the artist is of utmost
importance in the appreciation of that work. If an artist has explicitly given a title to her work,
then the case is closed. This does not seem to be the case with respect to the Cleveland
woodcarving. We have no evidence that the artist explicitly gave the title “Christ and St. John
the Evangelist” to his work. Nonetheless, we do have evidence from the 13 th century that
connects St. John the Evangelist with “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” 23 It is reasonable to
suppose that at the time when the artist of “Christ and St. John the Evangelist” produced the
work, the words “Christ” and “Jesus” were used interchangeably and without distinction, and
that there was an identification of the “disciple whom Jesus loved” with the apostle John, son
of Zebedee, who was also thought to be the evangelist of the Gospel of John.
The evidence is clear that for centuries John the Evangelist was thought to be the “disciple
whom Jesus loved” spoken of in the later chapters of John’s Gospel. However, just because an
interpretation is an old interpretation does not mean or guarantee that it is an adequate
interpretation for today. For centuries humans held the idea of a geocentric universe. Galileo’s
heliocentric reinterpretation was not initially well-received. In fact, it was only a few years ago
that the Church formally removed Galileo’s name from the restricted list. Yet even today
vestiges of geocentric thinking survive: our weather forecasters do not speak in the more
appropriate heliocentric terminology of “earthrise” and “earthset,” but continue to use the
geocentric “sunrise” and “sunset.” We know that it is not the sun that is moving (rising or
setting), but the earth. Yet, we remain quite comfortable in retaining the traditional language.
Given the information of recent critical biblical scholarship on the Gospel of John, it appears
reasonable to move beyond the medieval interpretive universe which identified the BD with
John the Evangelist.
In contrast to the traditional artist-centered theory of interpretation, there is today a strong
school of thought that argues for a heavier emphasis on the role of the perceiver of the work.
The work of Umberto Eco manifests an approach to the interpretation of literary works that can
be applied effectively to other art forms as well. 24 This approach reasons that while the role of
the artist is crucial in the composition or creation of the work, once it is completed and
released by the artist into the public realm, the artist’s own particular interpretation of that
work becomes simply one of the potentially many and diverse interpretations of that work given
to it by its viewers. The artist has little, if any, control over how the work will be interpreted by
those who will perceive it.
History is replete with examples of interpretations of works of art that differed from the
intention of the artist. The bronze statue of Marcus Aurelius on horseback found on the
Capitoline Hill in Rome was thought by later generations of Christians to be a figure of the
Emperor Constantine. This social (mis-)interpretation is the likely reason why the statue
survived destruction: it was thought to be Christian rather than pagan art. Christian perceivers,
though in this case ignorant of the intentions of the artist, gave the bronze a new name.
Today similar experiences occur in the authentication of works of art. Just recently a chalk and
wash drawing was found and authenticated as being from the hand of Michelangelo .25 The
authentication resulted in a change in the titling of a work. The sketch was formerly labeled
“Italian, circa 1530-1540.” However, today’s Italian Renaissance scholars are convinced it is a
Michelangelo. Their authority is sufficient to change the label of this work. 26
21