[Advanced] Who decides what art means?

★ stroll 거닐다, 산책하다

to walk in a slow relaxed way, especially for pleasure

ex) We could stroll along the beach after dinner.

 

★ striking 눈에띄는, 매력적인

very unusual or easily noticed, and therefore attracting a lot of attention

ex) The library is a striking example of modern architecture.

 

★ vibrant 강렬한, 선명한

Vibrant colour or light is bright and strong

ex) He always uses vibrant colours in his paintings.

 

★ induce 유발하다

to cause something to happen:

ex) Pills for seasickness often induce drowsiness.

 

★ settle 해결하다, 합의를 보다

to reach a decision or an agreement about something, or to end a disagreement

ex) I'd like to get this matter settled once and for all.

 

★ replica 복제품, 모형

an exact copy of an object

ex) The ship is an exact replica of the original Golden Hind.

 

★ toss around 논의하다

If you toss ideas, suggestions, or phrases around, you mention them and discuss them with other people.

ex) The idea of such a program has long been tossed around.

 

★ consensus 의견 일치, 합의

a generally accepted opinion or decision among a group of people

ex) The general consensus in the office is that he can't do his job.

 

★ irrelevant 무관한, 상관없는

not related to what is being discussed or considered and therefore not important

ex) These documents are largely irrelevant to the present investigation.

 

★ fallacy (많은 사람들이 옳다고 믿는) 틀린 생각, (인식상의) 오류

an idea that a lot of people think is true but is in fact false:

ex) It is a common fallacy that women are worse drivers than men.

 

★ twofold 두 부분으로 된, 이중적인

having two parts

ex) The problem is twofold.

 

★ spell out ~을 간결하게 설명하다

explain something in a very clear way with detail

ex) The government has so far refused to spell out its plans/policies.

 

★ verse 운문, 시

writing that is arranged in short lines with a regular rhythm; poetry

ex) Shakespeare wrote mostly in verse.

 

★ coincidence 우연의 일치, 동시발생

an occasion when two or more similar things happen at the same time, especially in a way that is unlikely and surprising:

ex) You chose exactly the same wallpaper as us - what a coincidence!

 

★ advocate 지지하다

to publicly support or suggest an idea, development, or way of doing something

ex) He advocates the return of capital punishment.

 

★ middle ground 타협안, 절충안

position between two opposite opinions in an argument, or between two descriptions

ex) I'm sure that we can find a reasonable middle ground.

 

★ dictate …을 좌우하다, …에 영향을 주다

to influence something or make it necessary:

ex) The party's change of policy has been dictated by its need to win back younger voters.

 

 

Quizzes

(1) I don't know if you'd call her pretty but she's certainly very ________.

(2) It’s generally your job that ________ where you live now.

(3) His doctor ________ early retirement.

(4) Let me ________ why we need more money.

(5) There is pressure on the unions to ________ .

 

 

Questions

(1) According to the Intentional Fallacy, why is an artist's intentions irrelevant when seeking to understand their work ?

(2) According to Knapp and Michaels, what gives a work of art meaning?

(3) What does Noël Carroll compare the relationship between artist and audience to?

(4) How much do you think an artist's intentions affect our interpretation of their work? So which of these opinions do you lean towards?

 

 

 

Script

00:00

Imagine you and a friend are strolling through an art exhibit and a striking painting catches your eye. The vibrant red appears to you as a symbol of love, but your friend is convinced it's a symbol of war. And where you see stars in a romantic sky, your friend interprets global warming-inducing pollutants. To settle the debate, you turn to the internet, where you read that the painting is a replica of the artist's first-grade art project: Red was her favorite color and the silver dots are fairies.

 

00:46

You now know the exact intentions that led to the creation of this work. Are you wrong to have enjoyed it as something the artist didn’t intend? Do you enjoy it less now that you know the truth? Just how much should the artist's intention affect your interpretation of the painting? It's a question that's been tossed around by philosophers and art critics for decades, with no consensus in sight.

 

01:11

In the mid-20th century, literary critic W.K. Wimsatt and philosopher Monroe Beardsley argued that artistic intention was irrelevant. They called this the Intentional Fallacy: the belief that valuing an artist's intentions was misguided. Their argument was twofold: First, the artists we study are no longer living, never recorded their intentions, or are simply unavailable to answer questions about their work. Second, even if there were a bounty of relevant information, Wimsatt and Beardsley believed it would distract us from the qualities of the work itself. They compared art to a dessert: When you taste a pudding, the chef's intentions don't affect whether you enjoy its flavor or texture. All that matters, they said, is that the pudding "works."

 

02:01

Of course, what "works" for one person might not "work" for another. And since different interpretations appeal to different people, the silver dots in our painting could be reasonably interpreted as fairies, stars, or pollutants. By Wimsatt and Beardsley's logic, the artist's interpretation of her own work would just be one among many equally acceptable possibilities.

 

02:24

If you find this problematic, you might be more in line with Steven Knapp and Walter Benn Michaels, two literary theorists who rejected the Intentional Fallacy. They argued that an artist's intended meaning was not just one possible interpretation, but the only possible interpretation. For example, suppose you're walking along a beach and come across a series of marks in the sand that spell out a verse of poetry. Knapp and Michaels believed the poem would lose all meaning if you discovered these marks were not the work of a human being, but an odd coincidence produced by the waves. They believed an intentional creator is what makes the poem subject to understanding at all.

 

03:04

Other thinkers advocate for a middle ground, suggesting that intention is just one piece in a larger puzzle. Contemporary philosopher Noel Carroll took this stance, arguing that an artist's intentions are relevant to their audience the same way a speaker's intentions are relevant to the person they’re engaging in conversation. To understand how intentions function in conversation, Carroll said to imagine someone holding a cigarette and asking for a match. You respond by handing them a lighter, gathering that their motivation is to light their cigarette. The words they used to ask the question are important, but the intentions behind the question dictate your understanding and ultimately, your response.

 

03:45

So which end of this spectrum do you lean towards? Do you, like Wimsatt and Beardsley, believe that when it comes to art, the proof should be in the pudding? Or do you think that an artist's plans and motivations for their work affect its meaning? Artistic interpretation is a complex web that will probably never offer a definitive answer.

 

 

Answers

(1) striking

(2) dictates

(3) advocated

(4) spell out

(5)  settle