1
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Imagine you and a friend are 
strolling through an art exhibit

2
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and a striking painting catches your eye.

3
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
The vibrant red appears to you 
as a symbol of love,

4
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
but your friend is convinced 
it's a symbol of war.

5
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
And where you see stars in a romantic sky,

6
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
your friend interprets global 
warming-inducing pollutants.

7
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
To settle the debate, you turn to the
internet, where you read 


8
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
that the painting is a replica of 
the artist's first-grade art project:

9
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Red was her favorite color 
and the silver dots are fairies.

10
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
You now know the exact intentions 
that led to the creation of this work.

11
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Are you wrong to have enjoyed it 
as something the artist didn’t intend?

12
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Do you enjoy it less now 
that you know the truth?

13
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Just how much should 
the artist's intention

14
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
affect your interpretation 
of the painting?

15
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
It's a question that's been tossed around

16
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
by philosophers and art critics for 
decades, with no consensus in sight.

17
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
In the mid-20th century,

18
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
literary critic W.K. Wimsatt and 
philosopher Monroe Beardsley

19
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
argued that artistic 
intention was irrelevant.

20
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
They called this the Intentional Fallacy:

21
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
the belief that valuing an artist's 
intentions was misguided.

22
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Their argument was twofold:

23
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
First, the artists we study are 
often no longer living,

24
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
never recorded their intentions,

25
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
or are simply unavailable to answer 
questions about their work.

26
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Second, even if there were a bounty 
of relevant information,

27
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Wimsatt and Beardsley believed

28
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
it would distract us from the 
qualities of the work itself.

29
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
They compared art to a dessert:

30
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
When you taste a pudding,

31
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
the chef's intentions don't affect whether
you enjoy its flavor or texture.

32
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
All that matters, they said, 
is that the pudding "works."

33
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Of course, what "works" for one person 
might not "work" for another.

34
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
And since different interpretations 
appeal to different people,

35
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
the silver dots in our painting could be 
reasonably interpreted as fairies,

36
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
stars, or pollutants.

37
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
By Wimsatt and Beardsley's logic, the
artist's interpretation of her own work

38
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
would be just one among many equally
acceptable possibilities.

39
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
If you find this problematic,

40
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
you might be more in line with Steven 
Knapp and Walter Benn Michaels,

41
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
two literary theorists who rejected the
Intentional Fallacy.

42
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
They argued that an artist's 
intended meaning

43
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
was not just one possible interpretation,

44
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
but the only possible interpretation.

45
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
For example, suppose you're 
walking along a beach

46
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
and come across a series of marks in the 
sand that spell out a verse of poetry.

47
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Knapp and Michaels believed the 
poem would lose all meaning

48
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
if you discovered these marks were not 
the work of a human being,

49
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
but an odd coincidence 
produced by the waves.

50
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
They believed an intentional creator

51
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
is what makes the poem subject to 
understanding at all.

52
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Other thinkers advocate for 
a middle ground,

53
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
suggesting that intention is just one 
piece in a larger puzzle.

54
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Contemporary philosopher Noel Carroll 
took this stance,

55
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
arguing that an artist's intentions are 
relevant to their audience

56
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
the same way a speaker's intentions

57
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
are relevant to the person they’re 
engaging in conversation.

58
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
To understand how intentions function 
in conversation,

59
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Carroll said to imagine someone holding
a cigarette and asking for a match.

60
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
You respond by handing them a lighter,

61
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
gathering that their motivation is to 
light their cigarette.

62
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
The words they used to ask the question 
are important,

63
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
but the intentions behind the question 
dictate your understanding and ultimately,

64
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
your response.

65
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
So which end of this spectrum 
do you lean towards?

66
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Do you, like Wimsatt and Beardsley, 
believe that when it comes to art,

67
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
the proof should be in the pudding?

68
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Or do you think an artist's plans and 
motivations for their work

69
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
affect its meaning?

70
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
Artistic interpretation is a complex web

71
99:59:59,999 --> 99:59:59,999
that will probably never offer 
a definitive answer.