Interpretation In Aesthetics

The Monist 73 (2):167-180 (1990)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

One virtue among the several vices in recent philosophy of art, whether in Anglo-American or continental terms however various, is careful work on the interactions among theory, history, and practice. Thus, philosophers as diverse as Nelson Goodman, Arthur Danto, Richard Wollheim, and Francis Sparshott, on the one hand and Hans-Georg Gadamer, Paul Ricoeur, Gilles Deleuze, and François Lyotard, on the other, continue to elaborate their sustained reflections on art in the context of repeated and closely detailed case studies within the individual arts of literature, painting, dance, cinema, and so on. My purpose here is not to survey the complex character of this widespread resurgence of interest in a less general and more finely grained approach to recurring problems in the philosophy of art. Rather, I would like to put on exhibit two case studies of this striking new work. And my initial interest is to call attention to its central, repeated, and yet problematic reliance on what I will argue is an insufficiently critical grasp of the seminal notion in modern aesthetics of interpretation. I shall take my examples here from two currents only in contemporary philosophical reflection on the arts, analytic aesthetics in the recent work of Arthur Danto and hermeneutic aesthetics in that of Hans-Georg Gadamer. In each case I will try to suggest briefly without attempting to demonstrate in detail that the interpretive practices of these representative and distinguished contemporary philosophers of art seriously undermine their theoretical views about interpretation. Specifically I will argue that the recurring tension in each account between theory and practice derives largely if not exclusively from very different and yet similarly uncritical accounts of both historical and systematic uses of interpretation. Finally, in my conclusion, with the help of some reflections on aesthetics in the late Heidegger, I will try to confront both Danto’s and Gadamer’s view briefly in order to generate a series of still unresolved issues about interpretation that call for further reflection.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,164

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Interpretation: Ways of Thinking About the Sciences and the Arts.Peter Machamer & Gereon Wolters (eds.) - 2010 - Pittsburgh, Pa.: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Introduction to aesthetics: an analytic approach.George Dickie - 1997 - New York: Oxford University Press.
Constitutional Interpretation.Keith Burgess-Jackson - 1989 - Dissertation, The University of Arizona
An intensional interpretation of ockham's theory of supposition.Catarina Dutilh Novaes - 2008 - Journal of the History of Philosophy 46 (3):pp. 365-393.
Hypothetical and Psychoanalytic Interpretation.Marcus Verhaegh - 2001 - Journal of Philosophical Research 26:295-305.

Analytics

Added to PP
2011-01-09

Downloads
54 (#281,390)

6 months
7 (#328,545)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references