Many of the art pieces we looked at in the MoMA were abstract, often defying reality and instead adopting a dream-like, irrational quality that is characteristic of many surrealist paintings. As a result, attempting to interpret the images can be a bit difficult. However, it is possible to interpret art through context, as Berger states that art represented “the totality of possible views taken from points all round the object (or person) being depicted” (18). One of the paintings we observed contained familiar objects such as balloons, shooting stars, and kites despite the unusual context in which these objects were painted–these items were depicted with a gray, dark, and messy background, which makes it challenging to understand how these objects are connected to each other and the background. Therefore, it is important to acknowledge that such objects, which in this case are often seen in childish, innocent contexts, can actually be shown through a variety of different perspectives and concepts.

Barnet emphasizes the importance of asking basic questions such as “What is my first response to the work,” “When, where, and why was the work made,” and “What is the title?” in order to formulate ideas and interpretations (57). Initial reactions towards especially shocking pieces of art can help to clarify an interpretation of an art piece, as it pushes us to go back and find the specific features of the work that elicited such a reaction in the first place. The background information of the work is also helpful. For example, for surrealist paintings, understanding the movement behind the work, as well as the place in which it was created can help us understand the abstractness of the painting. For example, although Salvador Dali’s “The Persistence of Memory” might be confusing to the viewer at first sight, knowing the purpose of the surrealist movement might help one to determine why or how the painting is surrealist.

Often times, many of us are afraid to interpret an art piece in fear of drawing the wrong conclusions, or more specifically, interpreting the art in a manner different from how the artist intended. This fear brings up Barnet’s question: “Does the artist’s intention limit the meaning of a work?” (23) It is important to remember that everyone views things, especially art, differently. According to Berger, what we see is “the relation between things and ourselves” (9). Naturally, how we relate to things, such as images, vary as we have different experiences. Therefore, it is often argued that “the creator of the work cannot comment definitively on it” because “the work belongs…to the perceivers, who of course interpret it variously” (Barnet 24). Our interpretations of art are valid, as it is perceived differently by everyone. This can be applied to surrealist paintings, as their abstract qualities magnify the variety of interpretations because they are meant to stimulate the imagination, which is boundless.