[Script Info]
Title: 
[Events]
Format: Layer, Start, End, Style, Name, MarginL, MarginR, MarginV, Effect, Text
Dialogue: 0,0:00:13.00,0:00:16.04,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Imagine you and a friend are \Nstrolling through an art exhibit
Dialogue: 0,0:00:16.04,0:00:18.66,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and a striking painting catches your eye.
Dialogue: 0,0:00:18.66,0:00:22.08,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,The vibrant red appears to you \Nas a symbol of love,
Dialogue: 0,0:00:22.08,0:00:25.44,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,but your friend is convinced \Nit's a symbol of war.
Dialogue: 0,0:00:25.44,0:00:28.96,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And where you see stars in a romantic sky,
Dialogue: 0,0:00:28.96,0:00:33.79,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,your friend interprets global \Nwarming-inducing pollutants.
Dialogue: 0,0:00:33.79,0:00:37.41,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,To settle the debate, you turn to the\Ninternet, where you read
Dialogue: 0,0:00:37.41,0:00:41.91,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that the painting is a replica of \Nthe artist's first-grade art project:
Dialogue: 0,0:00:41.91,0:00:46.75,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Red was her favorite color \Nand the silver dots are fairies.
Dialogue: 0,0:00:46.75,0:00:51.33,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,You now know the exact intentions \Nthat led to the creation of this work.
Dialogue: 0,0:00:51.33,0:00:55.40,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Are you wrong to have enjoyed it \Nas something the artist didn’t intend?
Dialogue: 0,0:00:55.40,0:00:58.92,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Do you enjoy it less now \Nthat you know the truth?
Dialogue: 0,0:00:58.92,0:01:01.04,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Just how much should \Nthe artist's intention
Dialogue: 0,0:01:01.04,0:01:04.33,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,affect your interpretation \Nof the painting?
Dialogue: 0,0:01:04.33,0:01:06.28,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,It's a question that's been tossed around
Dialogue: 0,0:01:06.28,0:01:11.78,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,by philosophers and art critics for \Ndecades, with no consensus in sight.
Dialogue: 0,0:01:11.78,0:01:13.48,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,In the mid-20th century,
Dialogue: 0,0:01:13.48,0:01:17.99,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,literary critic W.K. Wimsatt and \Nphilosopher Monroe Beardsley
Dialogue: 0,0:01:17.99,0:01:21.36,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,argued that artistic \Nintention was irrelevant.
Dialogue: 0,0:01:21.36,0:01:23.83,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,They called this the Intentional Fallacy:
Dialogue: 0,0:01:23.83,0:01:28.15,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the belief that valuing an artist's \Nintentions was misguided.
Dialogue: 0,0:01:28.15,0:01:30.27,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Their argument was twofold:
Dialogue: 0,0:01:30.27,0:01:33.55,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,First, the artists we study are \Nno longer living,
Dialogue: 0,0:01:33.55,0:01:35.45,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,never recorded their intentions,
Dialogue: 0,0:01:35.45,0:01:39.60,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,or are simply unavailable to answer \Nquestions about their work.
Dialogue: 0,0:01:39.61,0:01:44.16,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Second, even if there were a bounty \Nof relevant information,
Dialogue: 0,0:01:44.16,0:01:45.60,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Wimsatt and Beardsley believed
Dialogue: 0,0:01:45.60,0:01:49.09,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,it would distract us from the \Nqualities of the work itself.
Dialogue: 0,0:01:49.09,0:01:51.23,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,They compared art to a dessert:
Dialogue: 0,0:01:51.23,0:01:52.77,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,When you taste a pudding,
Dialogue: 0,0:01:52.77,0:01:57.34,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the chef's intentions don't affect whether\Nyou enjoy its flavor or texture.
Dialogue: 0,0:01:57.34,0:02:01.60,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,All that matters, they said, \Nis that the pudding "works."
Dialogue: 0,0:02:01.60,0:02:05.68,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Of course, what "works" for one person \Nmight not "work" for another.
Dialogue: 0,0:02:05.68,0:02:09.02,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And since different interpretations \Nappeal to different people,
Dialogue: 0,0:02:09.02,0:02:13.27,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the silver dots in our painting could be \Nreasonably interpreted as fairies,
Dialogue: 0,0:02:13.27,0:02:15.51,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,stars, or pollutants.
Dialogue: 0,0:02:15.51,0:02:19.66,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,By Wimsatt and Beardsley's logic, the\Nartist's interpretation of her own work
Dialogue: 0,0:02:19.66,0:02:24.55,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,would just be one among many equally\Nacceptable possibilities.
Dialogue: 0,0:02:24.55,0:02:26.20,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,If you find this problematic,
Dialogue: 0,0:02:26.20,0:02:30.29,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,you might be more in line with Steven \NKnapp and Walter Benn Michaels,
Dialogue: 0,0:02:30.29,0:02:34.07,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,two literary theorists who rejected the\NIntentional Fallacy.
Dialogue: 0,0:02:34.07,0:02:36.46,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,They argued that an artist's \Nintended meaning
Dialogue: 0,0:02:36.46,0:02:39.05,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,was not just one possible interpretation,
Dialogue: 0,0:02:39.05,0:02:41.80,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,but the only possible interpretation.
Dialogue: 0,0:02:41.80,0:02:44.49,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,For example, suppose you're \Nwalking along a beach
Dialogue: 0,0:02:44.49,0:02:49.01,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and come across a series of marks in the \Nsand that spell out a verse of poetry.
Dialogue: 0,0:02:49.01,0:02:52.22,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Knapp and Michaels believed the \Npoem would lose all meaning
Dialogue: 0,0:02:52.22,0:02:55.69,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,if you discovered these marks were not \Nthe work of a human being,
Dialogue: 0,0:02:55.69,0:02:58.47,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,but an odd coincidence \Nproduced by the waves.
Dialogue: 0,0:02:58.47,0:03:00.42,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,They believed an intentional creator
Dialogue: 0,0:03:00.42,0:03:04.59,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,is what makes the poem subject to \Nunderstanding at all.
Dialogue: 0,0:03:04.59,0:03:06.93,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Other thinkers advocate for \Na middle ground,
Dialogue: 0,0:03:06.93,0:03:11.82,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,suggesting that intention is just one \Npiece in a larger puzzle.
Dialogue: 0,0:03:11.82,0:03:15.26,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Contemporary philosopher Noel Carroll \Ntook this stance,
Dialogue: 0,0:03:15.26,0:03:18.93,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,arguing that an artist's intentions are \Nrelevant to their audience
Dialogue: 0,0:03:18.93,0:03:20.66,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the same way a speaker's intentions
Dialogue: 0,0:03:20.66,0:03:24.16,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,are relevant to the person they’re \Nengaging in conversation.
Dialogue: 0,0:03:24.16,0:03:27.10,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,To understand how intentions function \Nin conversation,
Dialogue: 0,0:03:27.10,0:03:31.21,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Carroll said to imagine someone holding\Na cigarette and asking for a match.
Dialogue: 0,0:03:31.21,0:03:33.20,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,You respond by handing them a lighter,
Dialogue: 0,0:03:33.20,0:03:36.25,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,gathering that their motivation is to \Nlight their cigarette.
Dialogue: 0,0:03:36.25,0:03:39.10,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,The words they used to ask the question \Nare important,
Dialogue: 0,0:03:39.10,0:03:43.47,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,but the intentions behind the question \Ndictate your understanding and ultimately,
Dialogue: 0,0:03:43.47,0:03:45.49,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,your response.
Dialogue: 0,0:03:45.49,0:03:48.52,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So which end of this spectrum \Ndo you lean towards?
Dialogue: 0,0:03:48.52,0:03:52.26,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Do you, like Wimsatt and Beardsley, \Nbelieve that when it comes to art,
Dialogue: 0,0:03:52.26,0:03:53.100,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the proof should be in the pudding?
Dialogue: 0,0:03:53.100,0:03:57.69,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Or do you think that an artist's plans \Nand motivations for their work
Dialogue: 0,0:03:57.69,0:03:59.35,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,affect its meaning?
Dialogue: 0,0:03:59.35,0:04:02.11,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Artistic interpretation is a complex web
Dialogue: 0,0:04:02.11,0:04:06.16,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that will probably never offer \Na definitive answer.