L3 - Art Interpretation & Authorial Intent Flashcards
Describe the intentionalist view of art interpretation. What is a possible problem with this view?
The intentionalist view, also called the romantic view is one of the theories on how to interpret art. This view believes that the author decides the meaning of their work. They are considered as a “genius”, uniquely and intuitively sensitive to beauty. The artwork itself is an idea and the expression of the artist. There is only one correct interpretation of the work’s meaning and that is what the artist intended to express.
One of the problems with this perspective is the meaning of actions and creations can evolve. What was intended to convey a specific message or value in one era might be interpreted differently in another, leading to shifts in societal norms and values. For example, the rainbow flag’s evolving symbolism showcases how the meaning of a symbol can expand and change over time to encompass a broader range of concepts and identities.
Explain the anti-intentionalist view of art interpretation defended by New Criticism.
The anti-intentionalist view says that a good interpretation is not directed at the artist or their intentions, but rather the artwork itself. The most extreme anti-intentionalist branch of New Criticism specifically states that authors’ intentions should not play a role in the interpretation of their work. When interpreting a work, you should only look at the work itself, nothing else. If it is not in the work, it is not important for interpretation and not part of the meaning.
Explain how Wimsatt and Beardsley both agree and disagree with New Criticism when it comes to how we should interpret art.
New Criticism and Wimsatt and Beardsley share similarities in their approaches to interpreting art, emphasizing close analysis of the work itself without relying on external factors like authorial intentions or historical context. However, the main difference lies in the extent to which they consider authorial intentions:
1. New Criticism:
- Approach: Focuses on analyzing the internal elements of the artwork, such as language, symbolism, and structure, to derive meaning.
- View on Authorial Intentions: Rejects any reliance on authorial intentions entirely. Wimsatt and Beardsley advocate for the complete exclusion of the author’s intentions, emphasizing a purely objective analysis of the artwork without considering the artist’s intended meaning.
2. Wimsatt and Beardsley:
- Approach: Also emphasizes internal analysis, insisting on interpreting the work based solely on its textual elements.
- View on Authorial Intentions: Allows limited consideration of historical context or authorial intentions if they directly influence the text. Wimsatt and Beardsley They may acknowledge external influences if they are evident within the work.
Explain what constructivists say about art interpretation. Do you find this plausible? Explain.
The view of the Constructivism in art interpretation in that the reader/listener/viewer creates/decides the meaning of a work. If an artwork is released, its author “dies, meaning the audience of the work creates its meaning and everybody is right. There are two levels of constructivism. The extreme/radical constructivism says that every reading of a work creates a new work. Nobody is wrong and nobody ever reads the same work. The more moderate constructivism states that we are all appreciating the same work, but it has many different possible meanings, given by the audience.
I don’t find this view particularly plausible, as it is very selfish in a way to think that nothing that isn’t viewed by us would have meaning. A tree that fell in the forest, even if not seen by anyone, is still a fallen tree.
Explain hypothetical intentionalism. Is this an intentionalist or anti-intentionalist position? Explain.
Hypothetical intentionalism posits that the correct meaning of a work is determined by the best hypothesis about the artist’s intention made by a chosen audience. The focus is on the audience’s interpretation based on their understanding of the artist’s intention. The meaning of a work lies in our best
hypothesis about the author’s
intentions, based on the work itself
(not on the actual author).
The hypothetical author is the
arbiter of the meaning of the work.
Hypothetical intentionalism is an anti-intentionalism view on the interpretation of art. The meaning of a work lies in our best hypothesis about the author’s intentions, based on the work itself (not on the actual author). That is why it is an anti-intentionalist position, as the meaning does not depend on the author but the hypothesis we make based on the work itself.
On the exam, you can be asked to analyse a particular case (a specific artwork, AI art, an artist claiming something about their artwork, a mistake in an artwork, a misinterpretation of an artwork, …), from the perspective of a specific theory of art interpretation.
Eg.: A glitch occurs while creating art on a computer, thus creating a weird painting.
* Choose a theory of art interpretation that would allow us to say that this painting has meaning. Explain why this theory would allow for this.
Based on the hypothetical intentionalist view, the glitch in the artwork could be considered as part of the painting, as we are evaluating the artwork itself and the authors intend directly.
Would romantic intentionalists evaluate this glitch painting differently than New Critics would?
Romantic intentionalism and New Criticism are two different literary and artistic schools of thought, primarily associated with the interpretation of literature but also applicable to other forms of art, including visual arts. Let’s break down how each might approach the evaluation of a glitch in computer-generated art:
-
Romantic Intentionalism:
- Focus on the Artist’s Intent: Romantic intentionalists often prioritize understanding the artist’s intentions and emotions behind the work. They might be more interested in how the glitch influences or disrupts the artist’s original vision or emotional expression.
- Embrace of Imperfection: Some romantic intentionalists might see the glitch as a serendipitous element, adding a sense of unpredictability or uniqueness to the artwork. They may appreciate the unintentional aesthetic qualities introduced by the glitch.
-
New Criticism:
- Text-Centric Analysis: New Critics tend to focus on the intrinsic qualities of the artwork itself, independent of the artist’s intentions or external factors. In the context of visual art, this would mean looking at the glitch as a formal element within the painting.
- Emphasis on Unity and Coherence: New Critics often value the unity and coherence of a work. If the glitch disrupts the overall unity or coherence of the artwork, New Critics might view it negatively. On the other hand, if the glitch contributes to a new kind of coherence or meaning, it could be seen more favorably.
In summary, romantic intentionalists are likely to consider the artist’s intentions and emotions when evaluating a glitch, possibly finding value in the unexpected or unintended aspects. New Critics, in contrast, may focus more on the formal qualities of the artwork and how the glitch affects the overall unity and coherence. However, it’s essential to recognize that individuals within these schools of thought may vary in their interpretations, and contemporary perspectives often incorporate elements from multiple critical approache
“Sherlock Holmes is an alien.” What would Intentionalism vs. Hypothetical Intentionalism say about that
Intentionalism: YES. That is our best reconstruction of author’s intent,
based on all evidence (in and outside of the work)
Hypothetical Intentionalism: NO. Our hypothesis about author’s intent should be based
on the work only. The work does not reflect the intention that Sherlock is an alien
