Philosophy
Art and Intention: The Role of Authorial Meaning in Interpretation
Quick fact
In 1946, Wimsatt and Beardsley coined the term 'intentional fallacy' to argue that a work's meaning is independent of its creator's intent. This sparked a century-long debate that remains central in aesthetics and literary criticism.
Why this is interesting
We often ask 'what did the artist mean?' when we encounter a puzzling painting or poem. But does the artist's intention actually determine what the work means—or is that a fallacy?
Read the full explanation
Understanding Art and Intention: The Role of Authorial Meaning in Interpretation
When we look at a painting or read a novel, we naturally wonder about the artist's intentions. But philosophers have long debated whether those intentions should guide our interpretation. The debate pits intentionalism (authorial meaning matters) against anti-intentionalism (the work itself is what counts). Understanding both sides helps us appreciate why interpretations differ and why some artists' statements are considered authoritative while others are ignored. For example, when we read a poem, should we look up the author's letters to decode it, or focus solely on the words on the page?
A deeper explanation
The debate centers on the relationship between the artist's mind and the artwork's meaning. Intentionalists argue that, much like a speaker's intention shapes the meaning of an utterance, an artist's intention shapes the meaning of their work. Anti-intentionalists, following Wimsatt and Beardsley, counter that a work is a public artifact, and its meaning must be derived from what is objectively present—language, form, and structure—not from private mental states that may be inaccessible or irrelevant. This distinction matters because it affects how we judge interpretations: if an author says 'I meant X,' do we accept it, or can the work legitimately mean Y? The answer shapes not only literary criticism but also visual art, film, and music.