TED-Ed｜谁来决定艺术作品的含义？

Who decides what art means?

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.
想象你和一位朋友正漫步观赏一个艺术作品展览，你被一幅引人注目的画作所吸引。醒目的红色在你看来象征着爱，但你的朋友坚持认为这红色象征着战争。你看到星星在浪漫的天空下，而你的朋友将此理解为全球变暖引发的污染物。为了解决争议，你上网查到如下解读——此画是艺术家复制自己小学一年级时在美术课上的画作：红色是她当时最喜欢的颜色，那些银色的点是小精灵。

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.
你此时明白了这幅画的确切创作意图。你对这幅画的解读与其作者的创作意图不符，你欣赏错了吗？你知道了这一点，此时你对此画作的欣赏减少了吗？艺术家的创作意图到底能影响多少你对其作品的解读？这个问题已经被哲学家们和艺术评论家们争论了几十年，仍未达成一致。

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."
在二十世纪中叶，文学评论家W·K·威姆斯特与哲学家曼诺·比尔斯雷认为艺术家的创作意图无关其作品的含义。他们称之为意图谬误：倚重于艺术创作者的意图——这种看法是一种误导。他们的论点分为两部分：一方面，我们研究的艺术创作者已不在世，这些艺术家从未留下关于自己的创作意图的记录，即：他们的作品创作意图根本没有考据。另一方面，即使有一大堆相关信息，威姆斯特和比尔斯雷相信这些信息会让我们这些观赏者分心——无法专注于作品本质。他们将艺术比作甜点：当你品尝布丁时，你是否喜欢其味道和质感并不取决于厨师的意图。关键是布丁对胃口。

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.
当然，一个人觉得好吃，另一个人也许觉得不好吃。既然不同的人有不同的鉴赏理解，画作中的银点当然可以被理解成精灵、星星，或者污染物。以威姆斯特和比尔斯雷的逻辑，艺术家对其作品的诠释只是众多平等的可接受的可能的诠释之一。

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.
如果你对这种观点存疑，你也许更支持史蒂文·萘普和怀特·本·迈克尔，这两位文艺理论家反对“意图谬误”。他们认为艺术家的创作意图并不是可能的含义之一，而是唯一可能的含义。比方说，想象你正在沿着海边散步，偶然看见沙子上有诗文的痕迹。萘普和迈克尔认为如果你发现这些痕迹并不是出自什么作家的诗篇那这首诗就毫无意义了，只不过是浪花造成的奇怪巧合而已。他们认为有意图的创作者才是赋予诗篇以内涵的关键。

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.
其他思想家倡导折中，即：意图只是一个更大的难题中的一个小问题。当代哲学家诺儿·卡罗尔持这个立场，他认为艺术家的意图与观众有关联，道理如同说者的意图与对话中的另一方是有关联的。想要理解意图是如何在对话中起作用的，卡罗尔认为——想象某人拿着一根烟要借根火柴。你递给对方一个打火机，因为你认为对方的动机就是点烟。对方问问题的用词的确重要，但是影响你去领会的是问题背后的意图，最终，你做出反馈。

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.
那么，你对这一系列的观点倾向哪一个？你是倾向威姆斯特和比尔斯雷认为有关艺术创作意图可以用布丁的例子来证明？抑或，你认为艺术家的创作动机影响着其作品的含义？艺术解读是个错综复杂的网，很可能永远不会有明确答案。


🎬视频版和更多文本内容见公众号【琐简英语】，回复"1" 可加入【打卡交流群】