Who decides what art means? - Hayley Levitt

譯者: Lilian Chiu 審譯者: Helen Chang

Imagine you and a friend are strolling through an art exhibit

想像你和一位朋友 在逛一場藝術展覽，

and a striking painting catches your eye.

一幅很搶眼的畫吸引了你的注意。

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

就你看來，畫上 明亮的紅色是愛的象徵，

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

但你的朋友深信那是戰爭的象徵。

And where you see stars in a romantic sky,

而當你看到浪漫天空上的星星時，

your friend interprets global warming-inducing pollutants.

你的朋友卻把它詮釋成 會造成全球暖化的污染物。

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

為了澄清你們爭論，你轉向網路， 在網路上你讀到的資訊說

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

該畫作是那位畫家的 頂級藝術計畫的複製品：

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

紅色是她最愛的顏色， 銀色的點是精靈。

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

現在你知道了創作 這件作品背後的確切意圖。

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

你享受和藝術家本意 不同的詮釋有錯嗎？

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

你知道真相之後， 是否就沒那麼享受它了？

Just how much should the artist's intention

藝術家的本意應該要影響

affect your interpretation of the painting?

你對該畫作的詮釋到什麼程度？

It's a question that's been tossed around

數十年來，哲學家和藝術評論家

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

都一直在問這個問題，

卻沒有達成任何共識。

In the mid-20th century,

在二十世紀中期，

literary critic W.K. Wimsatt and philosopher Monroe Beardsley

文學評論家威廉 K. 維薩特 和哲學家門羅 · 比爾斯利

argued that artistic intention was irrelevant.

主張藝術家的意圖是不重要的。

They called this the Intentional Fallacy:

他們將之稱為「意圖謬誤」：

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

認為重視藝術家的意圖， 其實是被誤導了。

Their argument was twofold:

他們的主張有兩部分：

First, the artists we study are no longer living,

第一，我們研究藝術家 已經不在人世，

never recorded their intentions,

他們的意圖從未被記錄下來，

or are simply unavailable to answer questions about their work.

或是根本就無法聯絡到他們， 更不可能詢問作品的問題。

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

第二，即使有許多相關的資訊，

Wimsatt and Beardsley believed

維薩特和比爾斯利相信， 那會讓我們分心，

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

無法注意作品本身的品質。

They compared art to a dessert:

他們把藝術比喻為點心：

When you taste a pudding,

當你嚐到布丁時，

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

主廚的意圖並不會影響 你是否享受它的味道或口感。

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

他們說，唯一重要的就是 那布丁「有效果」。

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

當然，對一個人「有效果」 不見得對另一個人也「有效果」。

And since different interpretations appeal to different people,

且因為不同的詮釋 會吸引不同的人，

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

畫作上的銀點可以被合理詮釋為

精靈、星星，或是污染物。

stars, or pollutants.

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

依照維薩特和比爾斯利的邏輯， 藝術家對於她自己的作品的詮釋

would just be one among many equally acceptable possibilities.

只是許多同樣能被接受的 可能性當中的一種。

If you find this problematic,

如果你覺得這樣很困擾， 你可能會比較認同

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

史蒂文 · 納普 和沃爾特 · 貝恩 · 米克爾斯，

two literary theorists who rejected the Intentional Fallacy.

這兩位文學理論家反對意圖謬誤。

They argued that an artist's intended meaning

他們主張，藝術家本來的意圖

was not just one possible interpretation,

並不只是一種可能的詮釋，

but the only possible interpretation.

是唯一一種可能的詮釋。

For example, suppose you're walking along a beach

比如，假設你沿著海灘散步，

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

看到沙灘上有一系列記印， 呈現出了一首詩。

Knapp and Michaels believed the poem would lose all meaning

納普和米克爾斯相信 那首詩會失去所有的意義，

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

如果你發現這些記印 不是人類所為，

but an odd coincidence produced by the waves.

而是海浪所產生的巧合。

They believed an intentional creator

他們相信，因為 創作者是有意圖的，

is what makes the poem subject to understanding at all.

才能讓一首詩被了解。

Other thinkers advocate for a middle ground,

其他思想家的主張都在中間立場，

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

認為意圖只是整個拼圖中的一塊。

Contemporary philosopher Noel Carroll took this stance,

當代哲學家諾爾 · 卡羅爾 就是採用這個立場，

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

他主張，藝術家的意圖 對於他的觀眾而言有重要性，

the same way a speaker's intentions

就如同說話者的意圖

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

對於參與對談的其他人 而言有重要性一樣。

To understand how intentions function in conversation,

若要了解在對談中的 意圖如何運作，

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

卡羅爾說，想像有一個人 拿著一根香菸，想要借火柴。

You respond by handing them a lighter,

你的反應是遞給他一個打火機，

gathering that their motivation is to light their cigarette.

因為你認為他的動機是要點菸。

The words they used to ask the question are important,

他問問題的用字很重要，

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

但問題背後的意圖 會支配你的理解，

最終會影響你的反應。

your response.

So which end of this spectrum do you lean towards?

所以，在這個光譜上， 你傾向哪一邊？

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

你是像維薩特和比爾斯利那樣， 相信就藝術來說，

the proof should be in the pudding?

證據應該要在布丁裡？

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

或者你認為藝術家在創作 其作品時背後的計畫和動機

affect its meaning?

會影響作品的意義？

Artistic interpretation is a complex web

藝術詮釋是一張很複雜的網，

that will probably never offer a definitive answer.

可能永遠都不會提供肯定的答案。