The Research Methods

Visual research can be divided into three categories: producing an artwork, the actual artwork, and the audience of the artwork (Rose 2001, 188). The art-historical viewpoint in is typically focused on audience reception. Examples of such research are Erwin Panofsky’s (1892–1968) Studies in Iconology (1939), John Dewey’s (1859–1952) Art as Experience (1934), and Aarne Kinnunen’s Estetiikka (2000).

Historically the artist has been considered as merely the fabricator of the finished product; the artwork, not the artist, was seen to be of primary importance. Some research took a more biographical point of view, but it was based on a sociological rather than a psychologi-cal approach (Weber 1969, 88; Justin Spring 1998, 84). For example,

Anna Louhivuori (1987, 146) maintained that Panofsky’s iconological interpretation model is too inflexible and unambiguous to interpret art by Chagall effectively.

In the 1980s, art historical research expanded to include theories from philosophy, sociology, feminism, psychoanalysis, and semiotics.

A wide range of different methodologies gave rise to considerations of what these mixed methods should address and how they should be responded to. In this climate of flux, it is especially important to investigate and collect data rigorously and to build a well-defined structure for visual interpretations (Vallius 2012, 167).

In modern semiotic history, two separate trends can be distin-guished. Ferdinand de Saussure’s (1857–1913) theory was based on a systematic study of language, or linguistic semiotics, and concerned the general science of signs and structuralism. Charles Sanders Peirce (1839–1924) came later to semiotics and worked in the field of in human sciences; his theory is based on logic, mathematics, and phi-losophy. Mikko Pirinen (2012, 85–86) asserted that Peircean semiotics is a methodology superior to Saussurean semiology for the interpreta-tions of visual art, because Peircean semiotic is not based on linguistic study methods.

In this dissertation Peirce’s theories were modified to interpret the unconscious in relation to the paintings’ visual signs. There are many other studies that have speculated upon the relationship between the unconscious and symbols. Researchers who have done semiotic studies are, among others, Etienne Souriau (1892–1979) and Roland Barthes (1915–1980). Today’s semiotic research is conducted by Alice Munro, Altti Kuusamo, Anna Louhivuori, Phyllis Chiasson, Lauri Routila, and Eero Tarasti. A semiotic interpretation can be widened to comprise additional informational and experimental levels. Roland Barthes maintained that visual artworks, in addition to being stud-ied as signs and codes, should also be interpreted with reference to the senses, memories, and unconscious experiences (Seppä 2012, 178–179). Semiotics can be an attitude for life. It can facilitate a deep

observation of different levels of culture—a happy science that per-mits wild and new ways of thinking (Kuusamo 1990, 43–44).

A research method was created to bring Peirce’s theories into con-sonance with Jung’s amplification method. Since Peirce’s theories are challenging to read, to avoid misinterpretation, I used Phyllis Chias-son’s 2001 book Peirce’s Pragmatism: The Design for Thinking as a sec-ondary source. Peirce’s three modes of reality—firstness, secondness, and thirdness—were utilized to interpret an artwork. This three-mode reality allows interpreters to reflect on their subjective feelings and then to compare them to collected data. The interpreters’ intuitive self-interpretations often correlate will with the more objective data.

It is impossible to avoid a subjective approach while interpreting artworks. In fact, in the analysis, personal interpretations can be seen as strength, and they can provide additional valuable data. In this approach to interpretation, the work of art is seen as a sign, and inter-pretation seeks to discover a sign’s objects—icon, index, and symbol.

Additionally, the objects are studied in combination with the sign’s character elements—sinsign, qualisign, and legisign. Peirce’s theory offers a logical and productive structure for approaching a variety of signs and reaching a multiplicity of interpretations.

Jungian theories inculcated a combined psychological and artis-tic perspective for the interpretation of artworks. Jung’s method of amplification is an effort to bring a symbol to life, and it is used as a technique to discover—through the seeking of parallels—a pos-sible context for any unconscious content that an image might have.

In amplification, a word or an element—from a fantasy, dream, or, in this study, artwork—is associated through the use of what Jung called the active imagination, with another context where it also occurs. It is a technique similar to the one that enabled hieroglyphics to be deciphered (Jung 1968, 92–93). One way to interpret possi-bly unconscious images is for the interpreter to become vulnerable by employing his or her unconscious mind to interpret an artwork; such use of the active imagination can enable a subjective experience of

an artwork on the part of the interpretr, who might thereby uncover unconscious content.

For this study I created a tool called the Artwork Interpretation Model, which is based on theories by Peirce and Jung. The work of art is seen as a semiotic sign, which can have multiple interpretations.

The artwork is interpreted in relation to theories of the unconscious.

This study aims to clarify how unconscious phenomena and the act of painting are linked together. The unconscious phenomena can best be exposed through the study of artistic techniques and the influence of a medium. Therefore, techniques used by Dalí and Pollock to trigger their unconscious mind while creating their artworks was evaluated.

Furthermore, a chronological overview of each artist’s life was taken into account, because artists’ entire lives affect their artworks.

The Artwork Interpretation Model is similar to a new content analysis method. Its strength is that the research data are studied systematically, and the research structure is made visible. A researcher can consider all the possible reasons for and principles of data collection. The model can be faulted for focusing too much on composition and paying less atten-tion to the producer and the interpreter. When this is an issue, another research method or theories should be employed in conjunction with the Artwork Interpretation Model (Seppä 2012, 229–230).

Dalí’s painting is full of symbols that can be delightful to interpret.

In contrast, for Pollock’s abstract art, which lacks depictions of figu-rative objects, it can be difficult to assess meaning. Abstract art does not always readily yield its content to interpretation. In fact, Peter Fingesten (1970, 105, 113–18) has suggested that since nonobjec-tive art is not symbolic in the traditional sense, these paintings should be designated metasymbolic rather than symbolic—the former term implying involvement with the creative process and the artist’s inten-tions. Fingesten proposes that when one sees an element in a painting as a symbol, one does not see it objectively in its material proper-ties. In contrast, in nonobjective art, there is no dichotomy between matter and spirit or between form and meaning, since they are fused.

A person does not search for symbols; instead, the viewer is directly impacted by experiencing the artwork.

Sari Kuuva Ph.D has also studied the relationship between visual symbols and art. In her dissertation “Symbol, Munch and Creativ-ity: Metabolism of Visual Symbols,” Kuuva (2010) designed a new approach for interpreting problematic symbols by redefining the con-cept of a symbol. In her interpretive, an artwork is seen thorough the lens of metabolism.

Vilayanur Subramanian Ramachandran (2000, 17–18) wrote that abstract art has not been satisfactorily explained in the past. He claimed that even Ernst Hans Gombrich (1909–2001), who spent almost fifty years studying consciousness, had very little to say about the evolution-ary basis of art, least of all abstract art. Therefore, in this study, I chose to make an abstract painting for interpretation, in order to address this gap.