Is Understanding The Artist’s Intention The Only Way We Can Interpret Their Work?
<p>Understanding the artist’s intention is one way of interpreting their work — but could not possibly be the only way.</p>
<p>Many theories support this stance— ranging from curatorial practice and epistemology to philosophical and art-historical perspectives.</p>
<p>Stecker’s chapter ‘Interpretation’ (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’s analysis.</p>
<p>‘Strategic Interpretation’, (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’s chapter entitled ‘Value’ (2013), ‘Taste’, as discussed by Korsmeyer (2013) and philosophy on aesthetic judgement in De Clercq’s chapter, ‘Beauty’ (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>