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.
想像你和一位朋友 在逛一場藝術展覽, 一幅很搶眼的畫吸引了你的注意。 就你看來,畫上 明亮的紅色是愛的象徵, 但你的朋友深信那是戰爭的象徵。 而當你看到浪漫天空上的星星時, 你的朋友卻把它詮釋成 會造成全球暖化的污染物。 為了澄清你們爭論,你轉向網路, 在網路上你讀到的資訊說 該畫作是那位畫家的 頂級藝術計畫的複製品: 紅色是她最愛的顏色, 銀色的點是精靈。
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.
現在你知道了創作 這件作品背後的確切意圖。 你享受和藝術家本意 不同的詮釋有錯嗎? 你知道真相之後, 是否就沒那麼享受它了? 藝術家的本意應該要影響 你對該畫作的詮釋到什麼程度? 數十年來,哲學家和藝術評論家 都一直在問這個問題, 卻沒有達成任何共識。
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."
在二十世紀中期, 文學評論家威廉 K. 維薩特 和哲學家門羅 · 比爾斯利 主張藝術家的意圖是不重要的。 他們將之稱為「意圖謬誤」: 認為重視藝術家的意圖, 其實是被誤導了。 他們的主張有兩部分: 第一,我們研究藝術家 已經不在人世, 他們的意圖從未被記錄下來, 或是根本就無法聯絡到他們, 更不可能詢問作品的問題。 第二,即使有許多相關的資訊, 維薩特和比爾斯利相信, 那會讓我們分心, 無法注意作品本身的品質。 他們把藝術比喻為點心: 當你嚐到布丁時, 主廚的意圖並不會影響 你是否享受它的味道或口感。 他們說,唯一重要的就是 那布丁「有效果」。
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.
當然,對一個人「有效果」 不見得對另一個人也「有效果」。 且因為不同的詮釋 會吸引不同的人, 畫作上的銀點可以被合理詮釋為 精靈、星星,或是污染物。 依照維薩特和比爾斯利的邏輯, 藝術家對於她自己的作品的詮釋 只是許多同樣能被接受的 可能性當中的一種。
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.
如果你覺得這樣很困擾, 你可能會比較認同 史蒂文 · 納普 和沃爾特 · 貝恩 · 米克爾斯, 這兩位文學理論家反對意圖謬誤。 他們主張,藝術家本來的意圖 並不只是一種可能的詮釋, 是唯一一種可能的詮釋。 比如,假設你沿著海灘散步, 看到沙灘上有一系列記印, 呈現出了一首詩。 納普和米克爾斯相信 那首詩會失去所有的意義, 如果你發現這些記印 不是人類所為, 而是海浪所產生的巧合。 他們相信,因為 創作者是有意圖的, 才能讓一首詩被了解。
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.
其他思想家的主張都在中間立場, 認為意圖只是整個拼圖中的一塊。 當代哲學家諾爾 · 卡羅爾 就是採用這個立場, 他主張,藝術家的意圖 對於他的觀眾而言有重要性, 就如同說話者的意圖 對於參與對談的其他人 而言有重要性一樣。 若要了解在對談中的 意圖如何運作, 卡羅爾說,想像有一個人 拿著一根香菸,想要借火柴。 你的反應是遞給他一個打火機, 因為你認為他的動機是要點菸。 他問問題的用字很重要, 但問題背後的意圖 會支配你的理解, 最終會影響你的反應。
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.
所以,在這個光譜上, 你傾向哪一邊? 你是像維薩特和比爾斯利那樣, 相信就藝術來說, 證據應該要在布丁裡? 或者你認為藝術家在創作 其作品時背後的計畫和動機 會影響作品的意義? 藝術詮釋是一張很複雜的網, 可能永遠都不會提供肯定的答案。