|
Objectivity in the Criticism of Art Works: Based on Noel Carroll s Views
|
Mehdi Shams *   , Mohammad Meshkat |
|
|
|
Abstract: (8606 Views) |
| objectivity with regard to interpretation of
an artwork means being allowed to talk about
true or false interpretations. Some theorists,
call them anti-intentionalist, see discovering
of the artwork’s meaning with reference to the
intentions of the author as problematic. Some
anti-intentionalists, including Roland Barthes,
basically deny objectivity in interpretation of
artworks. Others, including Monroe Beardsley,
accept the objectivity in interpretation
but ascribe it to the context. On the other
side of the debate, some intentionalists,
e.g. Hirsch, Levinson, and Carroll, see the
intentions of the author as the ground for
objectivity. The present article indicates that
the intentionalists’ arguments are stronger and
more consistent with the practices of art and
criticism. Furthermore, there is also a debate
that whether the intentions of the actual author
are the ones that should be looked for or those
that can be ascribed to a hypothetical author.
In this respect, we illustrate that Noel Carroll’s
actual intentionalism provides us with the best
answers. |
|
| Keywords: practice of criticism, objective interpretation, intention, intentional fallacy, hypothetical intentionalism, actual intentionalism, context, the death of the author, plausible and implausible |
|
|
Full-Text [PDF 428 kb]
(4237 Downloads)
|
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
Special
Received: 2015/06/10 | Accepted: 2015/06/10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Send email to the article author |
|
|
|
| Add your comments about this article |
|
|
|
