0:00:13.005,0:00:16.045 Imagine you and a friend are [br]strolling through an art exhibit 0:00:16.045,0:00:18.655 and a striking painting catches your eye. 0:00:18.655,0:00:22.085 The vibrant red appears to you [br]as a symbol of love, 0:00:22.085,0:00:25.445 but your friend is convinced [br]it's a symbol of war. 0:00:25.445,0:00:28.955 And where you see stars in a romantic sky, 0:00:28.955,0:00:33.787 your friend interprets global [br]warming-inducing pollutants. 0:00:33.787,0:00:37.407 To settle the debate, you turn to the[br]internet, where you read 0:00:37.407,0:00:41.907 that the painting is a replica of [br]the artist's first-grade art project: 0:00:41.907,0:00:46.746 Red was her favorite color [br]and the silver dots are fairies. 0:00:46.746,0:00:51.328 You now know the exact intentions [br]that led to the creation of this work. 0:00:51.328,0:00:55.398 Are you wrong to have enjoyed it [br]as something the artist didn’t intend? 0:00:55.398,0:00:58.918 Do you enjoy it less now [br]that you know the truth? 0:00:58.918,0:01:01.038 Just how much should [br]the artist's intention 0:01:01.038,0:01:04.328 affect your interpretation [br]of the painting? 0:01:04.328,0:01:06.278 It's a question that's been tossed around 0:01:06.278,0:01:11.778 by philosophers and art critics for [br]decades, with no consensus in sight. 0:01:11.778,0:01:13.479 In the mid-20th century, 0:01:13.479,0:01:17.989 literary critic W.K. Wimsatt and [br]philosopher Monroe Beardsley 0:01:17.989,0:01:21.359 argued that artistic [br]intention was irrelevant. 0:01:21.359,0:01:23.829 They called this the Intentional Fallacy: 0:01:23.829,0:01:28.149 the belief that valuing an artist's [br]intentions was misguided. 0:01:28.149,0:01:30.269 Their argument was twofold: 0:01:30.269,0:01:33.549 First, the artists we study are [br]no longer living, 0:01:33.549,0:01:35.449 never recorded their intentions, 0:01:35.449,0:01:39.599 or are simply unavailable to answer [br]questions about their work. 0:01:39.607,0:01:44.157 Second, even if there were a bounty [br]of relevant information, 0:01:44.157,0:01:45.597 Wimsatt and Beardsley believed 0:01:45.597,0:01:49.087 it would distract us from the [br]qualities of the work itself. 0:01:49.087,0:01:51.227 They compared art to a dessert: 0:01:51.227,0:01:52.767 When you taste a pudding, 0:01:52.767,0:01:57.337 the chef's intentions don't affect whether[br]you enjoy its flavor or texture. 0:01:57.337,0:02:01.597 All that matters, they said, [br]is that the pudding "works." 0:02:01.597,0:02:05.677 Of course, what "works" for one person [br]might not "work" for another. 0:02:05.677,0:02:09.018 And since different interpretations [br]appeal to different people, 0:02:09.018,0:02:13.268 the silver dots in our painting could be [br]reasonably interpreted as fairies, 0:02:13.268,0:02:15.510 stars, or pollutants. 0:02:15.510,0:02:19.660 By Wimsatt and Beardsley's logic, the[br]artist's interpretation of her own work 0:02:19.660,0:02:24.550 would just be one among many equally[br]acceptable possibilities. 0:02:24.550,0:02:26.202 If you find this problematic, 0:02:26.202,0:02:30.292 you might be more in line with Steven [br]Knapp and Walter Benn Michaels, 0:02:30.292,0:02:34.072 two literary theorists who rejected the[br]Intentional Fallacy. 0:02:34.072,0:02:36.462 They argued that an artist's [br]intended meaning 0:02:36.462,0:02:39.052 was not just one possible interpretation, 0:02:39.052,0:02:41.802 but the only possible interpretation. 0:02:41.802,0:02:44.492 For example, suppose you're [br]walking along a beach 0:02:44.492,0:02:49.012 and come across a series of marks in the [br]sand that spell out a verse of poetry. 0:02:49.012,0:02:52.221 Knapp and Michaels believed the [br]poem would lose all meaning 0:02:52.221,0:02:55.691 if you discovered these marks were not [br]the work of a human being, 0:02:55.691,0:02:58.471 but an odd coincidence [br]produced by the waves. 0:02:58.471,0:03:00.421 They believed an intentional creator 0:03:00.421,0:03:04.591 is what makes the poem subject to [br]understanding at all. 0:03:04.591,0:03:06.928 Other thinkers advocate for [br]a middle ground, 0:03:06.928,0:03:11.818 suggesting that intention is just one [br]piece in a larger puzzle. 0:03:11.818,0:03:15.258 Contemporary philosopher Noel Carroll [br]took this stance, 0:03:15.258,0:03:18.928 arguing that an artist's intentions are [br]relevant to their audience 0:03:18.928,0:03:20.658 the same way a speaker's intentions 0:03:20.658,0:03:24.158 are relevant to the person they’re [br]engaging in conversation. 0:03:24.158,0:03:27.098 To understand how intentions function [br]in conversation, 0:03:27.098,0:03:31.208 Carroll said to imagine someone holding[br]a cigarette and asking for a match. 0:03:31.208,0:03:33.201 You respond by handing them a lighter, 0:03:33.201,0:03:36.251 gathering that their motivation is to [br]light their cigarette. 0:03:36.251,0:03:39.102 The words they used to ask the question [br]are important, 0:03:39.102,0:03:43.472 but the intentions behind the question [br]dictate your understanding and ultimately, 0:03:43.472,0:03:45.492 your response. 0:03:45.492,0:03:48.518 So which end of this spectrum [br]do you lean towards? 0:03:48.518,0:03:52.258 Do you, like Wimsatt and Beardsley, [br]believe that when it comes to art, 0:03:52.258,0:03:53.998 the proof should be in the pudding? 0:03:53.998,0:03:57.688 Or do you think that an artist's plans [br]and motivations for their work 0:03:57.688,0:03:59.348 affect its meaning? 0:03:59.348,0:04:02.108 Artistic interpretation is a complex web 0:04:02.108,0:04:06.158 that will probably never offer [br]a definitive answer.