Who decides what art means? - Hayley Levitt

翻译人员: Congmei Han 校对人员: Yingyu Liu

Imagine you and a friend are strolling through an art exhibit

想象你和一位朋友正漫步观赏 一个艺术作品展览，

and a striking painting catches your eye.

你被一幅引人注目的画作所吸引。

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

醒目的红色在你看来象征着爱，

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

但你的朋友坚持认为 这红色象征着战争。

And where you see stars in a romantic sky,

你看到星星在浪漫的天空下，

your friend interprets global warming-inducing pollutants.

而你的朋友将此理解为 全球变暖引发的污染物。

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

为了解决争议，你上网查到 如下解读——

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

此画是艺术家复制自己 小学一年级时在美术课上的画作：

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

红色是她当时最喜欢的颜色 那些银色的点是小精灵。

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

你此时明白了这幅画的 确切创作意图。

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

你对这幅画的解读 与其作者的创作意图不符，你欣赏错了吗？

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

你知道了这一点，此时 你对此画作的欣赏减少了吗？

Just how much should the artist's intention

艺术家的创作意图到底能影响多少

affect your interpretation of the painting?

你对其作品的解读？

It's a question that's been tossed around

这个问题已经被

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

哲学家们和艺术评论家们 争论了几十年，仍未达成一致。

In the mid-20th century,

在二十世纪中叶，

literary critic W.K. Wimsatt and philosopher Monroe Beardsley

文学评论家W·K·威姆斯特 与哲学家曼诺·比尔斯雷

argued that artistic intention was irrelevant.

认为艺术家的创作意图 无关其作品的含义。

They called this the Intentional Fallacy:

他们称之为意图谬误：

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

倚重于艺术创作者的意图—— 这种看法是一种误导。

Their argument was twofold:

他们的论点分为两部分：

First, the artists we study are no longer living,

一方面，我们研究的 艺术创作者已不在世，

never recorded their intentions,

这些艺术家从未留下 关于自己的创作意图的记录，

or are simply unavailable to answer questions about their work.

即：他们的作品创作意图 根本没有考据。

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

另一方面，即使有一大堆相关信息，

Wimsatt and Beardsley believed

威姆斯特和比尔斯雷相信

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

这些信息会让我们这些观赏者分心 ——无法专注于作品本质。

They compared art to a dessert:

他们将艺术比作甜点：

When you taste a pudding,

当你品尝布丁时，

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

你是否喜欢其味道和质感 并不取决于厨师的意图。

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

关键是布丁对胃口。

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

当然，一个人觉得好吃， 另一个人也许觉得不好吃。

And since different interpretations appeal to different people,

既然不同的人有不同的鉴赏理解，

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

画作中的银点 当然可以被理解成精灵、

stars, or pollutants.

星星，或者 污染物。

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

以威姆斯特和比尔斯雷的逻辑， 艺术家对其作品的诠释

would just be one among many equally acceptable possibilities.

只是众多平等的可接受的 可能的诠释之一。

If you find this problematic,

如果你对这种观点存疑，

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

你也许更支持史蒂文·萘普 和怀特·本·迈克尔，

two literary theorists who rejected the Intentional Fallacy.

这两位文艺理论家反对 “意图谬误”。

They argued that an artist's intended meaning

他们认为艺术家的创作意图

was not just one possible interpretation,

并不是 可能的含义之一，

but the only possible interpretation.

而是唯一可能的含义。

For example, suppose you're walking along a beach

比方说，想象你正在沿着海边散步，

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

偶然看见沙子上有诗文的痕迹。

Knapp and Michaels believed the poem would lose all meaning

萘普和迈克尔认为 如果你发现这些痕迹

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

并不是出自什么作家的诗篇 那这首诗就毫无意义了，

but an odd coincidence produced by the waves.

只不过是浪花造成的奇怪巧合而已。

They believed an intentional creator

他们认为有意图的创作者

is what makes the poem subject to understanding at all.

才是赋予诗篇以内涵的关键。

Other thinkers advocate for a middle ground,

其他思想家倡导折中,

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

即：意图只是一个更大的 难题中的一个小问题。

Contemporary philosopher Noel Carroll took this stance,

当代哲学家诺儿·卡罗尔 持这个立场，

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

他认为艺术家的意图与观众有关联,

the same way a speaker's intentions

道理如同说者的意图

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

与对话中的另一方是有关联的。

To understand how intentions function in conversation,

想要理解意图是如何 在对话中起作用的，

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

卡罗尔认为——想象某人 拿着一根烟要借根火柴。

You respond by handing them a lighter,

你递给对方一个打火机，

gathering that their motivation is to light their cigarette.

因为你认为对方的动机就是点烟。

The words they used to ask the question are important,

对方问问题的用词的确重要，

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

但是影响你去领会的 是问题背后的意图，最终，

your response.

你做出反馈。

So which end of this spectrum do you lean towards?

那么，你对这一系列的观点 倾向哪一个？

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

你是倾向威姆斯特和比尔斯雷 认为有关艺术创作意图

the proof should be in the pudding?

可以用布丁的例子来证明？

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

抑或，你认为艺术家的创作动机

affect its meaning?

影响着其作品的含义？

Artistic interpretation is a complex web

艺术解读 是个错综复杂的网，

that will probably never offer a definitive answer.

很可能永远不会有明确答案。