예술적 의도: 해석에 미치는 영향

예술적 해석에 대한 논쟁은 계속되고 있습니다. 예술가의 의도가 작품에 대한 우리의 이해에 영향을 미쳐야 할까요, 아니면 예술 그 자체가 중요한 것일까요?

### 예술적 의도에 대한 논쟁: 예술가의 의도가 해석에 영향을 미칠까요?
* 🎨  예술가의 의도가 예술 작품의 해석에 영향을 미쳐야 하는지에 대한 논쟁은 수십 년 동안 계속되어 왔지만 합의점을 찾지 못하고 있습니다.
* 🍰  W.K. 윔삿과 먼로 비어슬리는 예술은 요리사의 의도가 디저트를 즐기는 데 영향을 미치지 않고 그 품질만 중요한 디저트에 비유하며 예술적 의도가 무의미하다고 주장했습니다.
* ✨  윔삿과 비어슬리의 논리에 따르면 예술에 대한 다양한 해석은 동등하게 허용되며, 예술가의 해석은 수많은 해석 중 하나에 불과합니다.
* 📜  스티븐 냅과 월터 벤 마이클스는 의도적 오류를 거부하고 예술을 이해의 대상으로 만드는 것은 의도적인 창작자라고 믿으며 예술가가 의도한 의미만이 가능한 유일한 해석이라고 주장했습니다.
* 🧩  노엘 캐롤은 대화에서 화자의 의도가 청중과 관련이 있는 것처럼 예술가의 의도가 청중과 관련이 있으며, 정답이 없는 복잡한 예술적 해석의 그물망을 형성한다고 중간 입장을 취했습니다.

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. 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.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

Who decides what art means? - Hayley Levitt

TED-Ed’s mission is to create lessons worth sharing. Feed and expand your curiosity with our award-winning animated shorts - published on YouTube and available with supplemental learning materials on ed.ted.com.

Want to suggest an idea for a TED-Ed animation, nominate an educator or animator? Visit our website at: http://ed.ted.com/get_involved.

Consider backing us on Patreon. By doing so, you directly support our nonprofit mission to create free, high-quality educational content: https://www.patreon.com/teded

For more information on using TED-Ed content for commercial purposes (e.g. employee learning, in a film, or in an online course), please submit a Media Request using this link: https://media-requests.ted.com/ 


TED-Ed

예술적 의도는 철학자와 예술 비평가들 사이에서 오랫동안 논쟁의 대상이 되어 왔습니다.

윔삿과 먼로 비어슬리는 예술을 요리사의 의도가 음식의 즐거움에 영향을 미치지 않는 디저트와 비교하며 예술적 의도가 무의미하다고 주장했습니다.

예술에 대한 해석이 사람마다 다르기 때문에 논쟁은 계속되고 있지만 합의점을 찾지 못하고 있습니다.

윔삿과 비어슬리 같은 이론가들은 예술에 대한 해석의 다양성을 믿는 반면, 냅과 마이클스는 예술가의 의도만이 중요하다고 주장합니다.

노엘 캐롤은 대화에서 의도가 작동하는 방식과 유사하게 예술가의 의도가 청중의 이해와 관련이 있다고 말하며 중간 지점을 제안합니다.

이 논쟁은 예술가의 계획과 동기가 작품의 의미에 영향을 미치는지, 아니면 다양한 해석에 열려 있어야 하는지를 중심으로 전개됩니다.

명확한 해답에 도달하는 것의 한계

이 상황에서는 명확한 답을 찾기 어려울 것입니다.