42a Art as Its Own Interpretation

8/10/2019 42a Art as Its Own Interpretation

1/19

Art as its Own Interpretation

Nineteen

ART AS ITS OWN INTERPRETATION

Nicholas Maxwell

Published inInterpretation and Its Objects: Studies in the

Philosophy of Michael Krauszedited by Andreea Ruvoi, Rodoi!,

! "#$%&'!

(ontributin) to this volu*e dedicated to Michael +raus )ives *eenor*ous leasure! -ut I .ind the occasion also extre*elyinti*idatin), .or I roose to resond to +raus/s two *ost recent

boo0s, Rightness and Reason 1RR2 and Limits of Rightness 13R2!4

What +raus has to say in these two volu*es is so co)ent, so lucid, so

*asterly, that you are le.t wonderin) what could be added, 5uestioned,

or challen)ed! +raus is in an esecially )ood osition to sea0 on

these issues o. interretation as, in addition to bein) a hilosoher, he

is also an artist and conductor! Proble*s o. interretation arise .or hi*

not 6ust as hilosohical roble*s to be re.lected on, but as ractical

roble*s that need to be dealt with durin) the rocess o. creation and

recreation, in art and *usic! My only hoe, I have decided, is to be

rovocative, no doubt .oolishly rovocative! In this essay I will de.enda version o. what +raus calls 7sin)ularis*!8 The version that I

de.end *a0es what *ay well aear outra)eous clai*s! Not only does

it assert that wor0s o. art have one correct interretation, it has theaudacity to seci.y, in each case, what this one correct interretation

is! This view, you *i)ht thin0, exhibits all the overarchin)

a*bitiousness, the hubris, in the .ield o. her*eneutics, that clai*s to

roound the one and only true 7theory%o.%everythin)8 have in

theoretical hysics!

As those who have read RR and 3R will 0now, +raus

distin)uishes two views, which he calls sin)ularis* and *ultilis*!

Sin)ularis* asserts, as I have already indicated, that each wor0 o. art

1or cultural arti.acts *ore )enerally2 has 6ust one ad*issible, correct

interretation, while *ultilis* allows that so*e wor0s o. art *ay

have several di..erent ad*issible interretations! Accordin) to

*ultilis*, 9incent van :o)h/sPotato Eaters1to ta0e one o. +raus/s

4'


2/19

NICHOLAS MAXWELL

exa*les2 *ay ad*issibly be interreted alon) .or*alist,sychoanalytic, Marxist or .e*inist lines! It *ay be ossible to )ive

reasons as to why one o. these interretations is better than another,

but these reasons are li0ely to be inconclusive, and it need not be the

case that 6ust one correct interretation exists! Two or *ore

inco*atible interretations *ay be e5ually correct!

The version o. sin)ularis* that I wish to de.end holds that the

wor0 o. art itsel. is the correct interretation o. itsel.! King Learis the

correct interretation o. Willia* Sha0eseare/s lay King Lear; the

Mona Lisa is itsel. the correct interretation o. 3eonardo da 9inci/s

icture; and ? An interretation is, by de.inition, so*ethin) 5uite

distinct .ro* the wor0 o. art itsel.! A wor0 o. art *ay be a icture, a

iece o. *usic, a dance, a lay, a novel or oe*, a .il*, a sculture!

An interretation, by contrast, is a iece o. discursive rose that sets.orth a articular view about the *eanin) o. the wor0 o. art in

5uestion! Its .unction is to illu*inate the wor0 o. art! An interretation

is not a wor0 o. art in its own ri)ht! An interretation is a text that

exounds, 5uestions, criticies, and ar)ues! Aart .ro* those rare

cases where a wor0 o. art is itsel. 6ust such a text 1Plato/s dialo)ues,

erhas2, an interretation cannot itsel. be a icture, iece o. *usic,

etc! No interretive scholar aints, chisels or co*oses to write his

text@ he or she writes! The thesis is re.uted!+raus would not, I thin0, a)ree with this ob6ection! RR oens

with a discussion o. *usical interretation, durin) the course o. which

+raus *a0es the thorou)hly reasonable oint that several

er.or*ances *ay )ive the sa*e interretation o. a 5uartet or

sy*hony! We cannot identi.y an interretation with a er.or*ance,

but a er.or*ance 1i. any )ood2 nevertheless yields, or is an exa*le

o., an interretation! =ere, an interretation o. a iece o. *usic is

itsel. a er.or*ance o. that iece o. *usic! And even when rival

interretations are bein) discussed, on the radio .or exa*le, to

co*are and contrast ieces o. recorded rival er.or*ances, toindicate di..erent interretations, is nor*al ractice! Art historians

so*eti*es do so*ethin) si*ilar! They )ive s0etches o. a wor0 o. artunder discussion to indicate structural atterns, )eo*etrical .or*s

i*licit in a )rou o. .i)ures! So*eti*es a crossover .ro* one art

.or* to another occurs@ conductors, in order to indicate how they wish

4


3/19


a assa)e to be hrased or interreted, *ay do so with )estures, withswees o. the hand in the air, even with )ri*aces! And this *ay be .ar

*ore )rahic and e..ective than anythin) they could say! (onductin)

is erhas, in art, the art o. indicatin) an interretation by *eans o. a

0ind o. restricted dance!

Nothin) here recludes the ossibility o. an interretation bein)

in the sa*e *ediu* as the wor0 bein) interreted, and nothin)

recludes the wor0 .ro* bein) its own best interretation! In *any

circu*stances, to ta0e the .or* o. a text, erhas with illustrations, is

*ore use.ul .or an ad6unct interretationBas we *ay call an

interretation that is not the wor0 o. art itsel.Bthan .or it to ta0e the

.or* o. another wor0 o. art in the sa*e *ediu*! This will be the case

whenever the ad6unct wor0 o. art would be 6ust as oa5ue, asinco*rehensible, to the audience, as the ori)inal wor0! -ut this will

by no *eans be always true! And in any case, no dee rincile exists

here@ 6ust a ractical 5uestion as to what 0ind o. ad6unct interretation

will do the 6ob best, in the )iven context, )iven the nature o. the wor0o. art, and the level o. exertise o. the audience!

3et us concede that an interretation can ta0e the .or* o. a

er.or*ance, a drawin), a )esture, and does not need to be a text! This

does not establish that a wor0 o. art can be its interretation! An

interretation, it *ay be ar)ued, is distinct .ro* that which is

interreted! No wor0 o. art can be its interretation!

This 5uestion can be settled by .iat, by 6ust de.inin)

7interretation8 as non%re.lexive, incaable o. alyin) to itsel.! -utdoes this .ollow .ro* the ordinary *eanin) o. 7interretation8>

+raus re.ers to the Eng!ish O"ford #i$tionar% de.initions o.

interretation as 7exlanation8 and 7exosition8 13R, ! 4#2! Why

should these not be interretable re.lexively> Why should not

so*ethin) be sel.%exlanatory, the best exosition o. itsel.> +raus

)oes on to 5uote the O"ford #i$tionar%as exlicatin) interretation in

such ter*s as 7construction ut uon8 or 7reresentation8; and in

ter*s o. such reositional hrases as 7to exound,8 7to render clear

or exlicit,8 7to elucidate,8 7to brin) out the *eanin) o.,8 7to obtain

si)ni.icant in.or*ation .ro*,8 7to ta0e in a *anner,8 7to construe,8and 7to si)ni.y!8 Nothin) here *a0es it i*ossible to construe

interretation in such a way that it can be re.lexive, that a wor0 o. artcan be an interretation o. itsel.! What could 7reresent,8 7exound,8

7render clear and exlicit,8 7elucidate,8 7brin) out the *eanin) o.8

7construe,8 and 7si)ni.y8 a wor0 o. art better than the wor0 o. art

4C


4/19

NICHOLAS MAXWELL

itsel.> I. so*ethin) other than the wor0 o. art reresents, exounds,and so on, the wor0 o. art better than the wor0 o. art itsel., is not this

other thin), whatever it *ay be, a better wor0 o. art in its ri)ht> No

concetual or de.initional ob6ection has been .ound to holdin) that a

wor0 o. art is its correct interretation! -ut this does not *a0e it true!

Is it ever true> Is it always true>

One way o. construin) the *atter would *a0e it only

in.re5uently true! (onceivably, a wor0 o. art, a novel or oe*, *i)ht

contain within itsel. an interretation o. itsel.! The author, usin) his

authorial voice, tells us in no uncertain ter*s what the overall *eanin)

o. the novel is; the oet rovides a stana, which rovides an

interretation o. the rest o. the oe*! That is not what I *ean when I

declare that a wor0 o. art is its correct interretation! That is a case o.a wor0 o. art containin) an 1ad6unct2 interretation o. itsel.; it does not

a*ount to the wor0 o. art, in its entirety, bein) the correct

interretation o. itsel.!

So .ar I have considered ob6ections to the thesis that a wor0 o. artis its correct interretation! What ositive )rounds are there .or

adotin) this view>

One )reat advanta)e o. holdin) that the wor0 o. art is its correct

interretation is that this view auto*atically ensures that, in the world

o. interretive activity, the wor0 o. art has ride o. lace! One dan)er

that besets interretive wor0 1as usually understood2 is that

interretation *ay co*e to aear al*ost *ore i*ortant than that

which is bein) interreted, the second bein) no *ore than the raw*aterial .or the .irst! Scholarly literary studies so*eti*es aear to

exalt the*selves above literature, and oor students, instead o.

absorbin) literature at .irst hand, absorb diverse oinions o. scholarly

acade*ic exerts about literature! Scholarly debates between the

exerts can co*e to aear *ore i*ortant than the literature that

)ives rise to the debates in the .irst lace! 3i0ewise, history o. art can

aear to beco*e a distinct, al*ost autono*ous disciline, with its

arcane rituals, re*ote .ro* the art that art history is intended to

illu*inate!

The view I a* de.endin) i*lies that, even in the world o.interretation, the wor0 o. art itsel. is sure*e! Ad6unct interretations

can only be, at *ost, ad hoc additions to the correct interretation, thewor0 o. art itsel.! :iven this view, in see0in) to i*rove our

understandin) and areciation o. wor0s o. art, to these wor0s o. art

we *ust return, interretive studies bein) used only as ad6uncts! Music

4#


5/19


criticis* is secondary to *usic, literary criticis* secondary toliterature, history o. art secondary to art, and so on!

Many artists are reluctant to ronounce on the *eanin) o. the

wor0s o. art they have created! This reluctance can be construed as a

*ani.estation o. the view I a* de.endin)! Dor such an artist, the wor0

o. art says 6ust what needs to be said, and is co*lete in itsel.! Its

*eanin) is contained within itsel.! I. the wor0 o. art could be su**ed

u in a sentence, it would be redundant and the sentence would do

instead! I. the wor0 needed additional re*ar0s to be understood and

areciated, then it would be inco*lete and de.ective as a wor0 o.

art! Attitudes such as these, o.ten i*licit in artists/ re.usals to

co**ent on their wor0, can be re)arded as exressions o. the view

that the wor0 contains its interretation, its *eanin); it exoundsitsel., and, i. any )ood, does not need the ro o. ad6unct

interretations and exlanations!

=oldin) that the wor0 o. art is its correct interretation resents

another advanta)e, which in so*e ways wor0s in the oositedirection to the above@ the line between art and its interretation

beco*es *uch less divisive, *uch less a line o. de*arcation! I. the

correct interretation is the wor0 o. art itsel., then ad6unct

interretations can, and erhas ou)ht to, asire to bein) wor0s o. art

in their ri)ht! Studies o. literature that are not tur)id, indi)estible tracts

o. acade*ic rose but are literature in their ri)ht are worth havin)! All

)ood ad6unct interretations ou)ht to e*body )ood aesthetic standards

that do not obstruct the 6ob o. bein) a )ood ad6unct interretation!3et us concede it le)iti*ate to construe 7interret8 re.lexively, so

that a wor0 o. art is an interretation o. itsel.! oes it .ollow that a

wor0 o. art is always, and necessarily, the correct interretation o.

itsel.> So*e years a)o I read Si*one de -eauvoir/s novel L&in'it(ein

translation, with the title She Came )o Sta%! It struc0 *e then to be a

novel that e*bodied a radically .alse interretation o. itsel.! The novel

is based on


6/19

NICHOLAS MAXWELL

how I re*e*ber the novel! My overowerin) i*ression on readin)the novel was that the Si*one de -eauvoir character was .uriously

and assionately 6ealous o. the youn)er wo*an, tre*blin) and .aint, at

ti*es, with ra)e and 6ealousy! This was deicted in the novel, but the

author, the real Si*one de -eauvoir, did not o..icially reco)nie these

sy*to*s as 6ealousy, and it was not a art o. the o..icial lot and

*eanin) o. the novel that the heroine su..ered .ro* 6ealousy, even

unac0nowled)ed 6ealousy! The novel e*bodied a radically .alse

interretation o. itsel.!

My interretation o. the novel *ay have been 5uite wron)!

Si*one de -eauvoir *ay, all alon), have been writin) a novel about

reressed 6ealousy, about the hyocrisy that can result .ro* decidin)

that an e*otion does not exist because it has been 6ud)ed to bedelorable! Guite conceivably, *y interretation o. the novel is correct

Bor another novel *isinterrets itsel. alon) the lines I have indicated!

The conclusion is evident@ a wor0 o. art can *isinterret itsel.! -ut i. a

wor0 o. art does *isinterret itsel. in this sort o. way, then this is aserious artistic .law! What *ay aear to be a *isinterretation *i)ht

be nothin) o. the 0ind; a *isinterretation *i)ht be a 5uite deliberate,

erhas ironically intended ersective on the wor0 o. art, woven

5uite consciously and artistically into the .abric o. the wor0, a vital

di*ension o. the wor0, enrichin) its *eanin)!

Once we concede that a wor0 o. art can be a .allacious

interretation o. itsel., in the 0ind o. way I have indicated, we have to

conclude that all wor0s o. art are sel.%interretations! The Si*one de-eauvoir novel 1as I re*e*ber it2 is not a case o. a wor0 that contains,

within itsel., a .alse ad6unct interretation, a ara)rah that declares,

.ir*ly and .alsely, that this is not a novel about unac0nowled)ed

6ealousy! The .alse interretation is built into the whole structure o. the

novel as a .eature o. the novel itsel., and is not con.ined to an ad6unct

interretation contained within the novel!

We have )iven a stron) ar)u*ent in .avor o. holdin) that wor0s

o. art do e*body interretations o. the*selves! That wor0s o. art do

e*body sel.%interretations is the case .or wor0s o. art that have a

literary character associated with the*@ the novel, the oe*, the oera,and even erhas the ballet or icture that tells a story! -ut how a

iece o. *usic could e*body a *isinterretation o. itsel. is notevident! So*e o. Moart/s *usic, even when aarently sri)htly and

cheer.ul, has an underlyin) *ood o. i**ense sadness! -ut this is not

*isinterretation, but )reat art! Nevertheless, i. literary art can

4&


7/19


*isinterret itsel., and thus invariably interret itsel., all art interretsitsel.!

Art is its interretation and, aart .ro* scattered cases o. .lawed

literary wor0s that *isinterret the*selves, wor0s o. art e*body the

correct interretation o. the*selves! :reat wor0s o. art do that! I wish

to de.end this version o. sin)ularis*!

-ut I can anticiate an ob6ection that ste*s .ro* +raus/s

writin)s on interretation! In 3R+raus declares that sin)ularis* and

*ultilis* are arasitic uon the idea o. 7an end o. in5uiry,8 in the

ra)*atic sense that 7in.or*ed ractitioners *ay a)ree that all

ertinent evidence or ar)u*entation is available to *a0e a suitably

in.or*ed deter*ination as to whether a )iven ob6ect o. interretation

answers to one or *ore than one interretation8 1! $%4H2! -ut thewor0 o. art itsel. stands, not at the end o. in5uiry, but at the be)innin)

o. in5uiry 1aart, erhas, .or the artist hersel.2! Notoriously, the wor0

o. art does not itsel. answer all 5uestions! I. it did, there would be no

need .or critics, art historians, *usicolo)ists, and other ro.essionalinterreters to roduce their *ass o. ad6unct interretations! I. the

correct interretation, or the correct batch o. interretations 1)ranted

*ultilis*2, resuose that, in so*e ra)*atic sense, all the relevant

.eatures have been covered, all the relevant 5uestions answered, then

the wor0 o. art cannot ossibly itsel. be the correct interretation!

And I can also .oresee another, related ob6ection! In RR, +raus

characteries the sin)ularist as holdin) 7his or her re.erred

interretation to be conclusively ri)ht8 1! "2! -ut this is hardlyso*ethin) that the wor0 o. art can itsel. acco*lish! Perhas in so*e,

and robably 5uite uninterestin), cases 6ust one conceivable

interretation exists, no discussion whatsoever bein) re5uired to

identi.y it! -ut in *ost cases, and in *ost cases o. )reat art, this is by

no *eans true! Only a.ter sustained i*a)inative critical exloration o.

diverse ossible interretations o. the wor0 o. art *ay so*e a)reed

interretation 1or batch o. accetable interretations2 e*er)e; and

even then it *ay be that no such a)ree*ent is reached! The wor0 o. art

cannot suly this sustained exloration o. ossibilities; it cannot, o.

itsel., establish that its interretation o. itsel. is 7conclusively ri)ht!8Sin)ularis*, as understood above, is untenable!

-ut neither o. these ob6ections is valid a)ainst the version o.sin)ularis* I a* de.endin) here! To be)in with, 7correct8 is not the

sa*e thin) as 7co*lete8 in the sense that all interretive 5uestions

that can be as0ed about the wor0 are answered in a *anner available

4$


8/19

NICHOLAS MAXWELL

instantly to everyone! In the .irst lace, the wor0 o. art *ay containwithin itsel. answers to 5uestions about what the wor0 o. art *eans or

says, but these answers are by no *eans obvious, even to those who

en6oy and understand the wor0 o. art! The value o. a wor0 *ay be

unerceived, even by exerts! It too0 about a century .or the )randeur

and ro.undity o. -ach/s *usic to be erceived and en6oyed )enerally

by the *usic%lovin) ublic! 1In connection with this oint, I have

de.ended a version o. realis* about value in )eneral, and aesthetic

value in articular, to *a0e roo* .or the ossibility o. learnin) about

what is o. value, includin) learnin) about the aesthetic value o. wor0s

o. art!"2 Second, there *ay be all sorts o. historical, cultural, lin)uistic,

or .actual *atters alluded to by the wor0 o. art, which need to be

0nown and understood .or a roer areciation and understandin) o.the wor0, but which the wor0 does not itsel. answer! In order to be

able to understand a oe* or novel you have to understand the

lan)ua)e; in order to understand and areciate a icture, you *ay

need to 0now about a *ytholo)ical story deicted by the icture! Inorder to understand a iece o. *usic you need to 0now so*ethin)

about, or to have had so*e exerience o., the *usical tradition within

which the iece exists! Third, the artist *ay have le.t so*e *atters o.

interretation obscure; rivate re.erences or allusions exist in the iece

which no a*ount o. 0nowled)e about traditions, history, culture, and

other ublicly available *atters can reveal! In this sort o. case, it needs

the artist 1or so*eone who 0nows the artist well2 to rovide the

necessary in.or*ation!In these sorts o. ways, then, the correct interretation o. the wor0

o. art, na*ely the wor0 o. art itsel., thou)h correct, is unli0ely o. itsel.

instantly to answer all interretive 5uestions .or everyone! iverse

ad6unct interretations are needed to answer diverse 5uestions that

di..erent eole as0, erhas because o. di..erent educational, cultural

or historical bac0)rounds, or di..erent interests! -ut this diversity o.

e5ually )ood ad6unct interretations does not *ean that *ultilis*

holds! The ad6unct interretations di..er not because they contradict

one another, but because they address di..erent audiences, and tac0le

di..erent 5uestions about the wor0 o. art!As .ar as the second ob6ection is concerned, i. sin)ularis* as

understood here is correct, and 0nown to be correct, then we do 0nowwhat the correct interretation is@ the wor0 o. art itsel.! -ut because

this interretation is not co*lete, any nu*ber o. crucial 5uestions

about the wor0 *ay re*ain to be answered! And even i. we concede

"H


9/19


that sin)ularis*, as understood here, is 0nown to be correct, this doesnot *ean that we 0now .or certain which o. several con.lictin) ad6unct

interretations is correct! -ecause an ad6unct interretation, even i.

correct, will re*ain *ore or less con6ectural in character, a ran)e o.

con.lictin) interretations *ay need to be ut .orward, to increase our

chances o. choosin) the correct one!


10/19

NICHOLAS MAXWELL

incon)ruence! +ie.er/s aintin)s incororate Nai sy*bolis*, and canbe seen as 7celebratin) or exorcisin) the world/s unresolved *e*ories

o. that terrible ast,8 as


11/19


tiny )er* o. truth 1exa))erated to the oint o. absurdity2, even thou)h,in another context, such an interretation would be shoc0in)ly and

aallin)ly inad*issible! Political cartoons, 6o0es, and satirical

co**ent deend .or their e..ect on distortion and exa))eration@ this

0ind o. diversity o. ad*issible interretations is, a)ain, co*atible

with sin)ularis*!

Another 0ind o. context is closer to +raus/s concerns, where the

existence o. diverse, con.lictin) e5ually ad*issible interretations

aears undeniable, and *ore o. a challen)e to sin)ularis*! I have in

*ind the context o. the er.or*in) arts! In (hater One o. RR, +raus

*a0es what is, to *e, a convincin) case .or ac0nowled)in) that there

can be e5ually ad*issible, even e5ually correct, di..erent

interretations o. one and the sa*e iece o. *usic! And in the theatre,oera, and ballet too, we would say that the sa*e thin) holds! =ow

can sin)ularis*, as I a* de.endin) the doctrine here, acco**odate

this oint>

To so*e extent sin)ularis* can acco**odate a variety o.con.lictin) ad*issible interretations o. er.or*in) arts in ways

already indicated! A ran)e o. interretations o. a sy*hony or lay

*ay be ad*issible in art because we want to discover what wor0s,

what *ost success.ully brin)s out the inherent aesthetic value o. the

iece! A)ain, a ran)e o. di..erent interretations *ay be ad*issible

because, when it co*es to the er.or*in) arts, er.or*ers have ai*s

other than to discover the 7correct8 interretation! irectors o. lays

and oeras *ay set out to shoc0, to rovo0e, or to win attention, acritical outcry, and an audience! (onductors, sin)ers, actors, directors

and other er.or*ers *ay want to hi)hli)ht so*e asect o. a well%

0nown wor0 that they .eel has been ne)lected, at the exense, erhas,

o. *ore obvious and, in the end, *ore i*ortant, .eatures! Mere

.ashion lays a *a6or role in in.luencin) how *usic and lays are

er.or*ed! =ow odd that, as .ar as *usic is concerned, authentic

er.or*ances are all the ra)e, but when it co*es to theater, 6ust the

oosite .ashion revails, it bein) al*ost de rig*e*rthat a roduction

o.Ham!et.or today should be set in a *odern cororation, the +in),

the Gueen, and the courtiers bein) business executives wearin) suitsand na*e ta)s, and shootin) each other with *achine )uns 1as

deicted by a "HH4, 7*uch ad*ired,8 roduction o. Ham!etby TheRoyal Sha0eseare (o*any2!

Puttin) aside such exa*les o. diverse ad*issible interretations

as these, which can be dealt with by sin)ularis* in ways indicated

"'


12/19

NICHOLAS MAXWELL

above, there aears to be a residue o. cases which ose *uch *ore o.a challen)e to sin)ularis*! Sy*honies can be er.or*ed in several

di..erent but e5ually le)iti*ate, authentic, correct ways; and the sa*e

)oes .or lays, oeras, and ballet! In so*e o. these cases, the ran)e o.

di..erent interretations *i)ht be narrowed down i. we 0new *ore!

The co*oser or laywri)ht *i)ht e*hatically dis*iss so*e

interretations as doin) violence to his or her intentions! I do not want

to su))est that the artist/s verdict is decisive! Artists can chan)e their

*ind, )row old, and .or)et what they ori)inally intended, or 6ust

*is6ud)e so*e er.or*ance *atters, so that i. their instructions are

.ollowed to the letter, the resultin) er.or*ance .ails to do 6ustice to

what is o. *ost value in the wor0! There *ay be *ore than one

creative artist involved, and these *ay not a)ree! Nevertheless, whatthe intentions o. an artist were in creatin) a wor0 o. art is a .actor in

deter*inin) what constitutes a correct interretation o. the wor0!

iscoverin) what these intentions are is di..icult in *any cases, the

artist bein) lon) dead!-ut even i. we were able to consult the co*oser or laywri)ht,

thin0in) that the resonse would be su..icient to deter*ine 6ust one

way o. er.or*in) or roducin) the wor0 as the correct one 1in all

cases2 is i*lausible! When the artist still lives, he or she *ay be

undecided, or even .allible, about crucial interretive issues! A

co*oser or laywri)ht *ay be deli)hted that a sy*hony or lay can

be er.or*ed in a variety o. di..erent ways, di..erent interretations

e*hasiin) di..erent asects o. the wor0, several di..erentinterretations bein) e5ually correct! I. this is the case, what beco*es

o. sin)ularis*>

One way to de.end sin)ularis* a)ainst this aarently lethal

ob6ection is to ar)ue that the er.or*in) arts are in a di..erent cate)ory

.ro* other art .or*s! In the case o. the er.or*in) arts, the wor0 o. art

only co*es to li.e, only exists, throu)h er.or*ance! The score, the

text o. the lay, or the choreo)rahic score is not a wor0 o. art in its

ri)ht, but is a set o. instructions .or the creation o. a wor0 o. art,

which co*es to .ruition in a er.or*ance! The wor0 o. art is not the

score or text but the clutch o. ideal 0inds o. er.or*ance, whichrealie the 7set o. instructions8 in di..erent, but e5ually valid, e5ually

correct ways! What is eculiar about er.or*in) art is that the wor0 o.artBthe clutch o. ideal 0inds o. er.or*anceBis inherently

*ulti.aceted! In re.errin) to Sha0eseare/s Ham!et or 3udwi) von

-eethoven/s Ninthwe are re.errin) to several distinct wor0s o. art

"


13/19


with so*e co**on .eatures, a .a*ily rese*blance, and a co**oninheritance@ na*ely the distinct 0inds o. ideal er.or*ance, all

en)endered by, *ade ossible by, Sha0eseare/s text, or -eethoven/s

score! Actors and *usicians are creative artists aided and abetted by

words and notes o. the wor0s they er.or*! And this way o. viewin)

the *atter is suorted by our honorin) )reat actors and er.or*ers as

creative artists, alon) with the artists who create the wor0s they

er.or*!

That sin)ularis* brea0s down in the case o. the er.or*in) arts

is due not to any inade5uacy in sin)ularis*, but to the stran)e, 7hydra%

headed8 character o. a er.or*ed wor0 o. art! When a er.or*er

7interrets8 a lay or *usical score, he or she does so*ethin) 5uite

di..erent .ro* what an art historian does in rovidin) an ad6unctinterretation o. a icture, and 5uite di..erent, a)ain, .ro* what a

*usicolo)ist or *usic critic does in writin) about *usic! The

er.or*er recreatesBor co%createsBthe wor0 o. art! In er.or*in)

Dran Schubert/sMoments m*si$a*", a ianist brin)s into .ull reality,into our co**on, ublic world, so*ethin) that, be.ore, was only a

otentiality, a set o. instructions .or the wor0 o. art the ianist 1with

the assistance o. Schubert/s instructions2 creates! The art historian or

*usic critic does nothin) o. the 0ind! Their ad6unct interretations are

not realiations o. the wor0s o. art under discussion! What we have, in

short, in the case o. the er.or*in) arts, is not one wor0 o. art and

*any di..erent e5ually correct ad6unct interretations, but *any

di..erent wor0s o. art, all sharin) co**on .eatures, and ste**in).ro* a co**on source, a co**on set o. instructions, each havin) 6ust

one correct ad6unct interretation 1aart .ro* the 5uali.ications to this

that have been discussed above2!

A *ischievous interlocutor *i)ht at this oint ta0e u the above

ar)u*ent and, ushin) it to the li*it, ar)ue that all art is er.or*in)

art, there bein) no evident dividin) line between er.or*in) art, and

art that is not er.or*ed! Poetry can be er.or*ed, 6ust li0e lays!

Novels can be read out loud to audiences, and thus er.or*ed! (harles

ic0ens went on tours readin) his novels! These days one can buy

cassettes and (s o. actors readin) wor0s o. literature! =ow aaintin), or a sculture can beco*e a set o. instructions .or a

er.or*ance is not 5uite evident 1althou)h so*e visual artists are7er.or*ance artists82!

On the other hand, ushin) the dividin) line between

er.or*ance and non%er.or*ance art in the other direction, it *i)ht

"C


14/19

NICHOLAS MAXWELL

be ar)ued that er.or*ances are 6ust the result o. tradition and custo*,and are never essential, because we can understand, en6oy and

areciate all art without the*! We do not have to )o to the theatre to

en6oy Sha0eseare; we can ic0 u a boo0 and read one o. his lays!

Even a *usician can read a *usical score, so that the *usic o. the

score is heard with the *ind/s ear!

Or, ut another way, it *i)ht be ar)ued that all art involves

er.or*ance in that we, in exeriencin), en6oyin) and understandin)

the wor0 recreate it in our i*a)ination! We read a *usical score and, i.

we have the s0ill, create in our *ind the sounds o. a 5uartet layin)!

We read a lay, and in our i*a)ination ut on a roduction, co*lete

with actors, *a0eu, scenery, entrances and exits! We read a novel,

and create in our i*a)ination the landscae, the eole, and the action!And when we loo0 at a icture, we co%create the wor0 o. art, the

.or*s, the landscae, the at*oshere, the *ood and *eanin) o. the

icture! We are all artists, and wor0s o. art are all, without excetion,

sets o. instructions .or the creation o. the wor0s o. art we see, hear,read, and en6oy! And since we are all di..erent, with di..erent ast

exeriences, i*a)inations, 0nowled)e, and s0ills, we all create

di..erent wor0s o. art .ro* any one set o. instructions@ Lear, )he

Mona Lisa, St Matthew Passion! Art is hydra%headed! The version o.

sin)ularis* I have been de.endin) here, which be)ins with the clai*

that the wor0 o. art is its interretation, has vanished without trace! A

wor0 o. art is *uch too *ulti.aceted a thin) to be caable o. bein)

7the correct interretation o. itsel.!8 No such ob6ect exists, only a seto. instructions, and as *any distinct wor0s o. art as eole who have

used the 7set o. instructions8 to co%create, .or the*selves, their

articular, ersonal, er.or*ed wor0 o. art! Sin)ularis* is nonsense! It

drowns in this ocean o. *ulti.aceted wor0s o. art!

This extre*e sub6ectivist view can be resisted, and ou)ht to be

resisted! One way to do this would be to ta0e the ar)u*ent .urther,

until it beco*es a red*$tio ad a+s*rd*m! Not 6ust wor0s o. art are

created by the er.or*ances we sta)e in our i*a)ination! The sa*e

alies to trees, houses, eole, cars, to 7*iddle%sied ob6ects,8 as

+raus would say, 5uite )enerally! What we aear to exerience, isnot out there, in the hysical world, but is the outco*e o. the

ercetual and interretive *achinery o. our *inds, or brains, )ettin)to wor0 on hysical sti*uli that we absorb via our sense or)ans! The

world external to us is, rou)hly, what *odern hysics says it is, 5uite

di..erent .ro* what we ordinarily exerience and suose it to be, or

"#


15/19


so*ethin) un0nown, un0nowable, and uni*a)inable!The 5uasi%+antian view 6ust outlined deserves to be re6ected! It

constitutes a .alse solution to what is, in *y view, the .unda*ental

roble* o. hilosohy which, elsewhere, I have .or*ulated li0e this@

7=ow can we understand our hu*an world, e*bedded within the

hysical universe, in such a way that 6ustice is done to the richness,

*eanin), and value o. hu*an li.e on the one hand, and to what

*odern science tells us about the hysical universe on the other

hand>8C This roble* is to be solved by areciatin) that hysics is

concerned only with a hi)hly selected asect o. all that exists, that

7causally e..icacious8 asect, which deter*ines the way events

un.old! In addition to the hysical is the exeriential@ colors, sounds,

s*ells, tactile 5ualities, as we exerience the*, and *oral and value5ualities o. eole and wor0s o. art! These exist out there in the world

around us, co*atible with, but not reducible to, the hysical! In

articular, then, wor0s o. art exist out there in the world around us,

i*bued with the 0ind o. aesthetic .eatures we attribute to the*! #Theworld as we exerience it is not, as Ren escartes thou)ht, and as

I**anuel +ant thou)ht in a di..erent way, in the *ind!

In articular, then, the usual distinction that we would *a0e

between a er.or*ed wor0 o. art, and one not er.or*ed, continues to

hold! A er.or*ance is so*ethin) that ta0es lace in the ublic world,

*usic layed in a concert hall, or a lay er.or*ed in a theatre! When

we read a lay, we *ay, in so*e sense, create a roduction o. the lay

in our i*a)ination; but this creation, bein) rivate, ta0in) lace onlyin our i*a)ination, is not a er.or*ance! Even i. we acceted the

5uasi%(artesian or +antian view, there would still be an analo)ous

distinction between 7ublic er.or*ances,8 and 7rivate i*a)inin)s!8

I have ad*itted above that a wor0 o. art, even thou)h bein) 1in

*ost cases2 the correct interretation o. itsel., is nevertheless unli0ely

to be co*lete, in the sense that it answers all 5uestions about how the

wor0 is to be understood! The 5uestion arises@ can we be sure that

always one correct answer to such 5uestions exists, even in the case o.

non%er.or*in) art, and even i. you allow that we *ay never 0now

what the correct answer 1i. it exists2 is> May not so*e wor0s o. art beinherently loosely seci.ied, even be 5uite consciously desi)ned to

carry two or *ore inco*atible ad6unct interretations> Is it beyondthe wit o. any artist to create such a wor0 o. art, erhas with the

deliberate intention o. .alsi.yin) sin)ularis*> (onsider Willia*

Wordsworth/s 3ucy oe* 7A Slu*ber id My Sirit Seal,8 discussed

"F


16/19

NICHOLAS MAXWELL

by +raus 1RR, ! FF%F$2! =ere is the oe*@

A slu*ber did *y sirit seal;

I had no hu*an .ears@

She see*ed a thin) that could not .eel

The touch o. earthly years!

No *otion has she now, no .orce;

She neither hears nor sees;

Rolled round in earth/s diurnal course,

With roc0s, and stones, and trees!

+raus considers two con.lictin) interretations o. this oe*, by

(leanth -roo0s and by D! W! -ateson! -roo0s sees the oe* asexressin) the lover/s a)onied shoc0 at the inertness, the dead

li.elessness, o. the loved one, deicted in the second stana! -ateson,

by contrast, sees the oe* as exressin) the antheistic )randeur o.

the deadB3ucy beco*in) a art o. the subli*e rocesses o. nature!These readin)s are inco*atible; but nothin) in the oe* allows us to

.avor one over the other! Is this not a case o. *ultilis*>

Wordsworth hi*sel. *i)ht have .avored one interretation over

the other, as doin) better 6ustice to his intentions in writin) the oe*!

-ut even the author/s intention *i)ht not be 6ud)ed conclusive! It

could always be ar)ued that, even i. Wordsworth did intend the oe*

to be understood in one way instead o. the other, nothin) in the oe*

itsel. suorts this 6ud)*ent! I. this was Wordsworth/s intention, thenhe .ailed to realie it ade5uately in his oe*! Wordsworth *i)ht oint

to other oe*s and writin)s o. his where, erhas, the antheistic

the*e is ronounced, to suort -ateson/s readin), but he would then

be roceedin) in the sa*e 0ind o. way that a literary critic would

roceed!

My view is that this case does not re.ute sin)ularis*! I thin0 the

oe*Bthe correct interretation o. the oe*Bincororates ele*ents

o. the two readin)s, -roo0s/s and -ateson/s! The oe* exresses the

shoc0 and horror associated with 3ucy/s inert state o. death, her body

bein) reduced to bein) rolled round with earth, stones, roc0s, andtrees! -ut a 0ind o. consolation arises .ro* 3ucy/s articiation in the

)randeur o. nature, as -ateson oints out! The oe* itsel.Bthecorrect interretation o. the oe*Bincludes the horror and the

)randeur!

Sin)ularis* can be re)arded as a blin0ered, sin)le%*inded view,

"&


17/19


which insists that wor0s o. art have 6ust one de.inite interretationBaview that cannot tolerate a*bi)uity, richness, and contradictory

e*otional resonses to thin)s! -ut it could be ar)ued that 6ust the

reverse is the case! The *ultilist cannot tolerate a*bi)uity, richness,

aarently contradictory e*otional resonses in a sin)le

interretation, and .eels obli)ed to ostulate *any di..erent

interretations 1each interretation doin) 6ustice 6ust to one asect o.

the wor02! The *ultilist is blin0ered and sin)le%*inded, intolerant o.

a*bi)uity, richness, and the co*lexity o. our e*otional resonses to

thin)s!

-ut what o. the artist who sets out to create a wor0 that has two

contradictory interretations built into it, in order to re.ute

sin)ularis*> Even this would not re.ute sin)ularis*; .or the correctinterretation would be that a sin)le, coherent, artistic intention was to

create a wor0 with two contradictory interretations!

To conclude, the view exounded here has .eatures *ore

characteristic o. *ultilis*, althou)h the view is a version o.sin)ularis* that I have de.ended throu)hout! Dirst, *y view

ac0nowled)es that we *ay never 0now which o. two or *ore

con.lictin) interretations is the correct one! Second, it e*hasies the

i*ortance o. develoin) a variety o. di..erent, and ossibly e5ually

ad*issible, interretations, in art in order to hel discover the correct

interretation! Third, incon)ruence is reco)nied as a crucial .eature o.

so*e wor0s o. art! Incon)ruence, when it exits, is incororated within

the sin)le correct interretation, and is not distributed betweendi..erent interretations, as *ultilis* *i)ht have it, none bein) able

to do 6ustice to the real *eanin) o. the wor0 as a result! Dourth, *y

view e*hasies that the whole oint o. ad6unct interretations is to

hel an audience all the better exerience, 0now, understand,

areciate, and en6oy what is o. *ost value in a wor0 o. artBor,

ossibly, see throu)h what is .raudulent, shabby, dishonest, and third%

rate! Ad6unct interretations, in order to be )ood, need to be

aroriate to their audience, its education, the ti*es it lives in, the

exerience it has o. co*arable wor0s o. art, and so on! There *ay be

*any di..erent ad6unct interretations, at di..erent levels, tac0lin)di..erent 5uestions! None is co*lete; but all *i)ht be correct! Di.th,

*y view ar)ues that in di..erent contexts, esecially in connectionwith the er.or*in) arts, a variety o. interretations *ay be

ad*issible, even thou)h not correct! Dinally, the view reco)nies the

*ulti.aceted character o. er.or*ed wor0s o. art!

"$


18/19

NICHOLAS MAXWELL

NOTES

4! Michael +raus, Rightness and Reasons, Interpretation in

C*!t*ra! Pra$ti$es 1RR2 1Ithaca, N! J!@ (ornell Kniversity Press,

4$$'2; Michael +raus, Limits of Rightness 13R2 13anha*, Md@

Row*an and 3ittle.ield, "HHH2!

"! Nicholas Maxwell, 7Are There Ob6ective 9alues>8 )he

#a!ho*sie Re'iew F$@ 14$$$2, 'H4L'4F; Nicholas Maxwell, )he

H*man Wor!d in the Ph%si$a! -ni'erse13anha*, Md!@ Row*an and

3ittle.ield, 4$&2, ch! "; Nicholas Maxwell, .rom Know!edge to

Wisdom1Ox.ord@ -lac0well, 4$&2, ch! 4H!'! 3eo Steinber),Leonardo&s In$essant Last S*pper 1New Jor0@

one -oo0s, 4$$'2!

! Michael Podro, 7Sace, Ti*e, and 3eonardo,8 )imes Literar%

S*pp!ement, no! C4C'@ 1


19/19

42a Art as Its Own Interpretation

Documents

Transcript of 42a Art as Its Own Interpretation