Is Understanding The Artist’s Intention The Only Way We Can Interpret Their Work?

<p>Understanding the artist&rsquo;s intention is one way of interpreting their work &mdash; but could not possibly be the only way.</p> <p>Many theories support this stance&mdash; ranging from curatorial practice and epistemology to philosophical and art-historical perspectives.</p> <p>Stecker&rsquo;s chapter &lsquo;Interpretation&rsquo; (2013) is a key text, clarifying and classifying key theories of actual intentionalism, monism, pluralism, and proper aim.</p> <p>Constructivism, discussed by Hein (1991) is concerned with the viewer making meaning based on individual experiential factors, aligning with key aspects of Stecker&rsquo;s analysis.</p> <p>&lsquo;Strategic Interpretation&rsquo;, (Raney et al, 2007) validates these theories with research conducted through curatorial practice, offering a multi-faceted, pluralist account of interpretation through international gallery education and visual arts.</p> <p>Further theoretical discourse pertinent to this argument, such as Kieran&rsquo;s chapter entitled &lsquo;Value&rsquo; (2013), &lsquo;Taste&rsquo;, as discussed by Korsmeyer (2013) and philosophy on aesthetic judgement in De Clercq&rsquo;s chapter, &lsquo;Beauty&rsquo; (2013) substantiate this view that artist intention is not the only form of interpretation.</p> <p><a href="https://medium.com/@mysoulswoons/is-understanding-the-artists-intention-the-only-way-we-can-interpret-their-work-69aafb38197b"><strong>Read More</strong></a></p>