[Music]
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 artists
first grade art project red was her
favorite color and the silver dots are
fairies you now know the exact
intentions that led to the creation of
this work are you wrong to have enjoyed
it as something that the artist didn't
intend do you enjoy it less now that you
know the truth just how much did the
artists 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 in the mid
20th century literary critic W K whimsy
and philosopher Monroe Beardsley argued
that artistic intention was irrelevant
they called this the intentional fallacy
the belief that valuing an artists
intentions was misguided their argument
was twofold first the artists we study
are no longer living never recorded
their intentions or simply unavailable
to answer questions about their work
second even if there were a bounty of
relevant information whimsy and Beasley
believe they would distract us from the
qualities of the work itself they
compared art to a desert when you taste
a pudding the chefs intentions don't
affect whether you enjoy its flavor or
texture all that matters they said is
that the pudding works of course what
works for one person might not work for
another
and since different interpretations
appeals of different people the silver
dots in our painting could be reasonably
interpreted as fairies stars or
pollutants by whims and Beardsley's
logic the artist's interpretation of her
own work would just be one among many
equally acceptable possibilities
if you find this problematic you might
be more aligned with Stephen Knapp and
Walter Ben Michaels to literary
theorists who rejected the intentional
fallacy they argued that an artist
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 believe 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 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 as
speakers 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 use to ask the question
are important but the intentions behind
the question dictate your understanding
and ultimately your response
so which end of this spectrum do you
lean towards do you like Windsor and
Beardsley believe that when it comes to
art the proof should be in the pudding
or do you think that an artist plans and
motivations for their work affect its
meaning artistic interpretation is a
complex web that will probably never
offer a definitive answer did you know
that ted-ed has a program dedicated to
sharing and amplifying the voices and
ideas of students around the world click
here to find out more about Ted student
platform
[Music]