1 00:00:13,005 --> 00:00:16,045 Imagine you and a friend are strolling through an art exhibit 2 00:00:16,045 --> 00:00:18,655 and a striking painting catches your eye. 3 00:00:18,655 --> 00:00:22,085 The vibrant red appears to you as a symbol of love, 4 00:00:22,085 --> 00:00:25,445 but your friend is convinced it's a symbol of war. 5 00:00:25,445 --> 00:00:28,955 And where you see stars in a romantic sky, 6 00:00:28,955 --> 00:00:33,787 your friend interprets global warming-inducing pollutants. 7 00:00:33,787 --> 00:00:37,407 To settle the debate, you turn to the internet, where you read 8 00:00:37,407 --> 00:00:41,907 that the painting is a replica of the artist's first-grade art project: 9 00:00:41,907 --> 00:00:46,746 Red was her favorite color and the silver dots are fairies. 10 00:00:46,746 --> 00:00:51,328 You now know the exact intentions that led to the creation of this work. 11 00:00:51,328 --> 00:00:55,398 Are you wrong to have enjoyed it as something the artist didn’t intend? 12 00:00:55,398 --> 00:00:58,918 Do you enjoy it less now that you know the truth? 13 00:00:58,918 --> 00:01:01,038 Just how much should the artist's intention 14 00:01:01,038 --> 00:01:04,328 affect your interpretation of the painting? 15 00:01:04,328 --> 00:01:06,278 It's a question that's been tossed around 16 00:01:06,278 --> 00:01:11,778 by philosophers and art critics for decades, with no consensus in sight. 17 00:01:11,778 --> 00:01:13,479 In the mid-20th century, 18 00:01:13,479 --> 00:01:17,989 literary critic W.K. Wimsatt and philosopher Monroe Beardsley 19 00:01:17,989 --> 00:01:21,359 argued that artistic intention was irrelevant. 20 00:01:21,359 --> 00:01:23,829 They called this the Intentional Fallacy: 21 00:01:23,829 --> 00:01:28,149 the belief that valuing an artist's intentions was misguided. 22 00:01:28,149 --> 00:01:30,269 Their argument was twofold: 23 00:01:30,269 --> 00:01:33,549 First, the artists we study are no longer living, 24 00:01:33,549 --> 00:01:35,449 never recorded their intentions, 25 00:01:35,449 --> 00:01:39,599 or are simply unavailable to answer questions about their work. 26 00:01:39,607 --> 00:01:44,157 Second, even if there were a bounty of relevant information, 27 00:01:44,157 --> 00:01:45,597 Wimsatt and Beardsley believed 28 00:01:45,597 --> 00:01:49,087 it would distract us from the qualities of the work itself. 29 00:01:49,087 --> 00:01:51,227 They compared art to a dessert: 30 00:01:51,227 --> 00:01:52,767 When you taste a pudding, 31 00:01:52,767 --> 00:01:57,337 the chef's intentions don't affect whether you enjoy its flavor or texture. 32 00:01:57,337 --> 00:02:01,597 All that matters, they said, is that the pudding "works." 33 00:02:01,597 --> 00:02:05,677 Of course, what "works" for one person might not "work" for another. 34 00:02:05,677 --> 00:02:09,018 And since different interpretations appeal to different people, 35 00:02:09,018 --> 00:02:13,268 the silver dots in our painting could be reasonably interpreted as fairies, 36 00:02:13,268 --> 00:02:15,510 stars, or pollutants. 37 00:02:15,510 --> 00:02:19,660 By Wimsatt and Beardsley's logic, the artist's interpretation of her own work 38 00:02:19,660 --> 00:02:24,550 would just be one among many equally acceptable possibilities. 39 00:02:24,550 --> 00:02:26,202 If you find this problematic, 40 00:02:26,202 --> 00:02:30,292 you might be more in line with Steven Knapp and Walter Benn Michaels, 41 00:02:30,292 --> 00:02:34,072 two literary theorists who rejected the Intentional Fallacy. 42 00:02:34,072 --> 00:02:36,462 They argued that an artist's intended meaning 43 00:02:36,462 --> 00:02:39,052 was not just one possible interpretation, 44 00:02:39,052 --> 00:02:41,802 but the only possible interpretation. 45 00:02:41,802 --> 00:02:44,492 For example, suppose you're walking along a beach 46 00:02:44,492 --> 00:02:49,012 and come across a series of marks in the sand that spell out a verse of poetry. 47 00:02:49,012 --> 00:02:52,221 Knapp and Michaels believed the poem would lose all meaning 48 00:02:52,221 --> 00:02:55,691 if you discovered these marks were not the work of a human being, 49 00:02:55,691 --> 00:02:58,471 but an odd coincidence produced by the waves. 50 00:02:58,471 --> 00:03:00,421 They believed an intentional creator 51 00:03:00,421 --> 00:03:04,591 is what makes the poem subject to understanding at all. 52 00:03:04,591 --> 00:03:06,928 Other thinkers advocate for a middle ground, 53 00:03:06,928 --> 00:03:11,818 suggesting that intention is just one piece in a larger puzzle. 54 00:03:11,818 --> 00:03:15,258 Contemporary philosopher Noel Carroll took this stance, 55 00:03:15,258 --> 00:03:18,928 arguing that an artist's intentions are relevant to their audience 56 00:03:18,928 --> 00:03:20,658 the same way a speaker's intentions 57 00:03:20,658 --> 00:03:24,158 are relevant to the person they’re engaging in conversation. 58 00:03:24,158 --> 00:03:27,098 To understand how intentions function in conversation, 59 00:03:27,098 --> 00:03:31,208 Carroll said to imagine someone holding a cigarette and asking for a match. 60 00:03:31,208 --> 00:03:33,201 You respond by handing them a lighter, 61 00:03:33,201 --> 00:03:36,251 gathering that their motivation is to light their cigarette. 62 00:03:36,251 --> 00:03:39,102 The words they used to ask the question are important, 63 00:03:39,102 --> 00:03:43,472 but the intentions behind the question dictate your understanding and ultimately, 64 00:03:43,472 --> 00:03:45,492 your response. 65 00:03:45,492 --> 00:03:48,518 So which end of this spectrum do you lean towards? 66 00:03:48,518 --> 00:03:52,258 Do you, like Wimsatt and Beardsley, believe that when it comes to art, 67 00:03:52,258 --> 00:03:53,998 the proof should be in the pudding? 68 00:03:53,998 --> 00:03:57,688 Or do you think that an artist's plans and motivations for their work 69 00:03:57,688 --> 00:03:59,348 affect its meaning? 70 00:03:59,348 --> 00:04:02,108 Artistic interpretation is a complex web 71 00:04:02,108 --> 00:04:06,158 that will probably never offer a definitive answer.