Who decides what art means? - Hayley Levitt

Prevodilac: Milenka Okuka Lektor: Ivana Korom

Imagine you and a friend are strolling through an art exhibit

Zamislite da sa prijateljem šetate kroz umetničku izložbu

and a striking painting catches your eye.

i zapadne vam za oko upečatljiva slika.

The vibrant red appears to you as a symbol of love,

Živahna crvena vas podseća na simbol ljubavi,

but your friend is convinced it's a symbol of war.

međutim, vaš prijatelj je ubeđen da se radi o simbolu rata.

And where you see stars in a romantic sky,

A tamo gde vi vidite zvezde na romantičnom nebu,

your friend interprets global warming-inducing pollutants.

vaš prijatelj to tumači kao zagađivače koji uzrokuju globalno zagrevanje.

To settle the debate, you turn to the internet, where you read

Kako biste razrešili debatu, okrećete se internetu gde čitate

that the painting is a replica of the artist's first-grade art project:

kako je slika replika umetničinog likovnog rada iz prvog razreda:

Red was her favorite color and the silver dots are fairies.

crvena joj je bila omiljena boja, a srebrne tačkice su vile.

You now know the exact intentions that led to the creation of this work.

Sada znate tačne namere koje su dovele do nastanka ovog dela.

Are you wrong to have enjoyed it as something the artist didn’t intend?

Da li je pogrešno što vam se sviđa iz razloga na koje umetnik nije ciljao?

Do you enjoy it less now that you know the truth?

Da li u njemu uživate manje sada kada znate istinu?

Just how much should the artist's intention

Tačno koliko bi umetnikove namere

affect your interpretation of the painting?

trebalo da utiču na vaše tumačenje slike?

It's a question that's been tossed around

To je pitanje kojim su se bavili

by philosophers and art critics for decades, with no consensus in sight.

filozofi i kritičari umetnosti decenijama bez izgleda da dođu do konsenzusa.

In the mid-20th century,

Sredinom XX veka,

literary critic W.K. Wimsatt and philosopher Monroe Beardsley

književni kritičar V. K. Vimzat i filozof Monro Birdsli

argued that artistic intention was irrelevant.

su tvrdili da je namera umetnika nevažna.

They called this the Intentional Fallacy:

Nazvali su to intencionalnom pogreškom:

the belief that valuing an artist's intentions was misguided.

verovanje da uvažavanje umetnikovih namera vodi u zabludu.

Their argument was twofold:

Njihov argument je bio dvostruk.

First, the artists we study are no longer living,

Prvo, umetnici koje izučavamo više nisu živi,

never recorded their intentions,

nikad nisu zabeležili svoje namere

or are simply unavailable to answer questions about their work.

ili su prosto nedostupni da odgovore na pitanja o njihovim delima.

Second, even if there were a bounty of relevant information,

Drugo, čak i da postoji izobilje relevantnih informacija,

Wimsatt and Beardsley believed

Vimzat i Birdsli su verovali

it would distract us from the qualities of the work itself.

da bi nas to odvratilo od kvaliteta samog dela.

They compared art to a dessert:

Uporedili su umetnost sa desertom:

When you taste a pudding,

kada okusite puding,

the chef's intentions don't affect whether you enjoy its flavor or texture.

namere kuvara ne utiču na to da li ćete da uživate u ukusu i teksturi deserta.

All that matters, they said, is that the pudding "works."

Sve što je važno, kažu, je da puding „deluje“.

Of course, what "works" for one person might not "work" for another.

Naravno, ono što „deluje“ na jednu osobu možda neće da „deluje“ na drugu.

And since different interpretations appeal to different people,

A kako se različita tumačenja sviđaju različitim ljudima,

the silver dots in our painting could be reasonably interpreted as fairies,

srebrne tačkice na našoj slici mogu s pravom da se tumače kao vile,

stars, or pollutants.

zvezde ili zagađivači.

By Wimsatt and Beardsley's logic, the artist's interpretation of her own work

Prema logici Vimzata i Birdslija, umetnikovo tumačenje njegovog dela

would just be one among many equally acceptable possibilities.

bi bila tek jedna od mnogih jednako prihvatljivih mogućnosti.

If you find this problematic,

Ukoliko vam je ovo problematično,

you might be more in line with Steven Knapp and Walter Benn Michaels,

možda ste više saglasni sa Stivenom Napom i Volterom Benom Majklsom,

two literary theorists who rejected the Intentional Fallacy.

dvojicom književnih teoretičara koji su odbacili intencionalnu pogrešku.

They argued that an artist's intended meaning

Tvrdili su da nameravano značenje umetnika

was not just one possible interpretation,

nije tek jedno od mogućih tumačenja,

but the only possible interpretation.

već da se radi o jedinom mogućem tumačenju.

For example, suppose you're walking along a beach

Na primer, pretpostavite da šetate plažom

and come across a series of marks in the sand that spell out a verse of poetry.

i naiđete na niz tragova u pesku koji ispisuju pesničku strofu.

Knapp and Michaels believed the poem would lose all meaning

Nap i Majkls su verovali da bi pesma u potpunosti izgubila značenje,

if you discovered these marks were not the work of a human being,

ukoliko biste otkrili da tragovi nisu delo ljudskog bića,

but an odd coincidence produced by the waves.

već da se radi o čudnoj slučajnosti koju su proizveli talasi.

They believed an intentional creator

Verovali su da su namere stvaraoca

is what makes the poem subject to understanding at all.

ono zbog čega je pesma uopšte i razumljiva.

Other thinkers advocate for a middle ground,

Drugi mislioci se zalažu za kompromis,

suggesting that intention is just one piece in a larger puzzle.

predlažući da je namera tek jedan delić u većoj slagalici.

Contemporary philosopher Noel Carroll took this stance,

Savremeni filozof Noel Kerol zastupa ovaj stav,

arguing that an artist's intentions are relevant to their audience

tvrdeći da su umetnikove namere bitne za njegovu publiku,

the same way a speaker's intentions

kao što su i namere govornika

are relevant to the person they’re engaging in conversation.

bitne za osobu koja je uključena u razgovor.

To understand how intentions function in conversation,

Kako bismo razumeli kako namere funkcionišu u razgovoru,

Carroll said to imagine someone holding a cigarette and asking for a match.

Kerol je rekao da zamislimo nekoga ko drži cigaretu i traži šibicu.

You respond by handing them a lighter,

Odgovarate tako što mu dodajete upaljač,

gathering that their motivation is to light their cigarette.

razumevajući da je njegova namera da zapali cigaretu.

The words they used to ask the question are important,

Reči koje su korišćene da se postavi pitanje su važne,

but the intentions behind the question dictate your understanding and ultimately,

ali namera iza pitanja diktira vaše razumevanje i, naposletku,

your response.

vaš odgovor.

So which end of this spectrum do you lean towards?

Dakle, kojem kraju spektra vi naginjete?

Do you, like Wimsatt and Beardsley, believe that when it comes to art,

Da li i vi, poput Vimzata i Birdslija verujete da kada se radi o umetnosti

the proof should be in the pudding?

dokaz bi trebalo da je u pudingu?

Or do you think that an artist's plans and motivations for their work

Ili smatrate da planovi i motivacije umetnika za njihova dela

affect its meaning?

utiču na značenje tog dela?

Artistic interpretation is a complex web

Tumačenje umetnosti je složena mreža

that will probably never offer a definitive answer.

koja verovatno nikad neće ponuditi definitivan odgovor.