Does what the artist intended fix what a work means?

This is exactly what is disputed: anti-intentionalists following Wimsatt and Beardsley deny it, holding meaning to be public, while various intentionalists argue that actual or hypothesized intentions constrain or determine correct interpretation.

Is art criticism just opinion?

On reason-based accounts like Beardsley's and Carroll's, no: critics support verdicts with reasons grounded in features of the work, so criticism is a rational practice in which evaluations can be defended and challenged, even if it does not yield proof.

Art Evaluation and Interpretation

This area concerns how works of art are to be interpreted and evaluated: what fixes a work's meaning, whether the artist's intention counts, and how critical judgments can be justified.

Definition

Art evaluation and interpretation is the study of how the meaning of an artwork is determined and how its value is assessed and justified, including the bearing of the artist's intentions, the practice of criticism, and the rational basis of evaluative judgments.

Scope

This area covers the theory of interpretation and criticism: the role of artistic intention in fixing meaning and the intentional fallacy, the aims and methods of art criticism and the grounds of evaluative judgment, and puzzles about our emotional engagement with fiction. It treats how reasons function in criticism and the relation between interpretation, value, and response. It does not cover the metaphysics of artworks or the concept of the aesthetic, treated in neighboring areas.

Sub-topics

Core questions

Does the artist's intention determine or constrain a work's meaning?
What are the aims of art criticism, and can critical verdicts be justified?
On what features do reasoned evaluations of artworks rest?
Why and how are we moved by characters and events we know to be fictional?

Key theories

The intentional fallacy (anti-intentionalism): Wimsatt and Beardsley argue that the author's intention is neither available nor desirable as a standard for judging the meaning or success of a literary work; meaning is public and resides in the work.
Criticism as reasoned evaluation: Beardsley and Carroll treat criticism as the giving of reasons grounded in features of the work—unity, complexity, intensity, or achievement—so that evaluative verdicts can be supported and contested rationally.

History

Modern theory of interpretation and criticism was shaped by the New Critical doctrine of the intentional fallacy, advanced by Wimsatt and Beardsley in 1946, which sought to detach meaning from authorial psychology. Beardsley's 1958 Aesthetics articulated a systematic theory of critical reasons and evaluation. Later philosophers including Carroll and Levinson defended forms of intentionalism and analyzed the practice of criticism, while the paradox of fiction raised distinct puzzles about emotional response.

Debates

Intentionalism vs. anti-intentionalism: Whether a work's meaning is fixed or constrained by the artist's actual intentions, or is determined by public conventions and textual features alone, is the central dispute in the theory of interpretation.
Objectivity of critical evaluation: Whether critical verdicts can be objectively justified by reasons grounded in the work, or are ultimately expressions of taste, bears on the status of criticism as a rational practice.

Key figures

W. K. Wimsatt
Monroe Beardsley
Noël Carroll
Jerrold Levinson

Seminal works

wimsattbeardsley1946
beardsley1958

Frequently asked questions

Does what the artist intended fix what a work means?: This is exactly what is disputed: anti-intentionalists following Wimsatt and Beardsley deny it, holding meaning to be public, while various intentionalists argue that actual or hypothesized intentions constrain or determine correct interpretation.
Is art criticism just opinion?: On reason-based accounts like Beardsley's and Carroll's, no: critics support verdicts with reasons grounded in features of the work, so criticism is a rational practice in which evaluations can be defended and challenged, even if it does not yield proof.