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