If the interpretation is made up by the reader, then the reader should be able to read Jack and Jill and derive the entire story of Hamlet? — NKBJ

Sure. There's no content that's not possible as an interpretation.

Why not then just stare at a loaf of bread and imagine all the plots of all the stories you want perfectly tailored to your own tastes and desires? What's the point of having any art at all?

Why not then just stare at a loaf of bread and imagine all the plots of all the stories you want perfectly tailored to your own tastes and desires? What's the point of having any art at all? — NKBJ

Haha! I can’t wait to hear his response! This is getting good!

Why not then just stare at a loaf of bread and imagine all the plots of all the stories you want perfectly tailored to your own tastes and desires? What's the point of having any art at all? — NKBJ

Whereupon you've apparently forgotten that we're talking about interpretations of something that we're not making up.

The interpretations come from us, they come from individuals. We "make those up" so to speak. What they're interpretations of is not something of our own devising. They're something someone else created (well, usually--you can also interpret your own artwork, of course).

I'm not saying that the interpretations aren't interpretations. They're still in response to some particular artwork. They're someone telling us what they see the artwork's meaning(s), significance(s), symbolism(s) etc. to be.

And the same individual is going to respond to different artworks in different ways, as well as different individuals responding to the same artwork in different ways, as well as the same individual responding to the same artwork in different ways on different occasions. But an individual isn't likely to have just any and every arbitrary phenomenal mental content in response to just one arbitrary item, no matter what it is. That in no way implies that there's any content that can't occur as an interpretation to some individual, however.

Whereupon you've apparently forgotten that we're talking about interpretations of something that we're not making up. — Terrapin Station

They're still in response to some particular artwork. They're someone telling us what they see the artwork's meaning(s), significance(s), symbolism(s) etc. to be. — Terrapin Station

Well, then you DO think that interpretations are bound to the actual words on the page.

In which case interpretation is bound to some objectivity.

Well, then you DO think that interpretations are bound to the actual words on the page. — NKBJ

Interpretations are about something other than the interpretation, something objective (usually, at least), sure.

That doesn't mean that interpretations are objective, or that there's any content restriction on them, of course.

I don't know why people get so confused re aboutness.

A book about the moon isn't the moon.

A film about vampires isn't a vampire.

Etc.

If x is about y, that doesn't make x have the property of yness.

A book about the moon is still bound to the attributes of the actual moon. You can't write a book about the moon and actually be writing about WW2.

You can't have an interpretation of Hamlet that is actually just a guide to the perfect PB&J. You're bound by the words and the plot. Your interpretation therefore has objective limits.

You can't write a book about the moon and actually be writing about WW2. — NKBJ

You can't per whom? It's up to individuals to decide. There's nothing that would prohibit anyone from any interpretation should they have it.

You want it both ways, Terrapin. But it doesn't work that way. You can't both say that an interpretation is about something and then say it doesn't have to be about that thing.

You want it both ways, Terrapin. But it doesn't work that way. You can't both say that an interpretation is about something and then say it doesn't have to be about that thing. — NKBJ

Where did I say anything like "It doesn't have to be about that thing"?

What I said was that what it is to be about x is for someone to think of it that way. Aboutness is a way of thinking about things.

It kind of sucks that the extent of the discussions I have around here are, "Try to get someone to understand what I'm even claiming so that they don't just keep forwarding straw men." It would be nice to have a discussion with someone intelligent enough to understand what I'm saying but who can forward a cogent objection to it without it constantly just being straw men, as if I'm addressing a bunch of Gumbies or something.

Where did I say anything like "It doesn't have to be about that thing"? — Terrapin Station

Here:

You can't write a book about the moon and actually be writing about WW2.
— NKBJ

You can't per whom? It's up to individuals to decide. There's nothing that would prohibit anyone from any interpretation should they have it. — Terrapin Station

It would be nice if you could stop contradicting yourself. But then you couldn't make your argument, so I guess I understand why you feel compelled to do so.

As I just said, "It kind of sucks that the extent of the discussions I have around here are, "Try to get someone to understand what I'm even claiming so that they don't just keep forwarding straw men." It would be nice to have a discussion with someone intelligent enough to understand what I'm saying but who can forward a cogent objection to it without it constantly just being straw men, as if I'm addressing a bunch of Gumbies or something. "

Anyway, on to the latest straw man:

Here:

You can't write a book about the moon and actually be writing about WW2.
— NKBJ

You can't per whom? It's up to individuals to decide. There's nothing that would prohibit anyone from any interpretation should they have it. — Terrapin Station


It would be nice if you could stop contradicting yourself. But then you couldn't make your argument, so I guess I understand why you feel compelled to do so. — NKBJ

In other words, who is to say that "about WW2 isn't about the moon" to someone? You might not agree that they'd be about the same thing, but someone else might have a different view.

All I'm doing here is trying to get you to understand what I'm even claiming. That would be easier if you had any interest in trying to understand it rather than just wanting to argue against it.

It would be nice to have a discussion with someone intelligent enough to understand what I'm saying but who can forward a cogent objection to it without it constantly just being straw men, as if I'm addressing a bunch of Gumbies or something. " — Terrapin Station

I'd rather not talk to you if you're going to say things like that to me.

And I'd rather talk to someone who can understand what I'm claiming, yet here we are.

And I'd rather talk to someone who can understand what I'm claiming, yet here we are. — Terrapin Station

I understand that you're wrong. I also understand that your defense mechanism when you can't win the argument is to get nasty. I want no part in that. We can have a discussion again someday when you've learned to be nicer.

Until then, have a nice life.

I understand that you're wrong. — NKBJ

Hard to do when you don't even understand what I'm claiming. Every response of yours has been the presentation of a different straw man.

@Brett @Noah Te Stroete

This post is responding to old posts. I am like 4 pages behind. Do NOT feel obligated to respond. I will be adding more as I catch up with the thread. I just wanted to be sure I answered your posts.

I don’t know where you come from but that is not the case where I live. — Brett

Maybe you are thinking of elementary (primary) school? In High School ALL arts except poetry and literature are electives or extra-curriculars, right? This can be proved by looking at state standards (I am in California) and graduation requirements. In an upper-middle class area, most schools will offer music or drama or something, but it is always optional (at public schools anyway). Poetry and literature are NOT optional.

Which is why studying Shakespeare as a play works so well. — Brett

Indeed, but it is also why a Transformers movie would work. And in case "Transformers" is causing problems, what about "Braveheart"? Maybe "Ironman"? (notice if I am trying to "teach" symbolism, "Ironman" would make this very easy - Shakespeare is for people who have already mastered symbolism and the other literary (rhetorical) devices and enjoy dissecting language).

Not sure why you keep apologizing. Stop it! LOL — Noah Te Stroete

Sorry (hehe), can't help it. If something seems obviously true to me, but I can't get others to buy it, then I can't help but assume I am doing something wrong. But your point is well taken, in a thread like this, I might apologize 20 times, and that would just get annoying.

I tend to agree that Shakespeare shouldn’t be taught in general education high school classes. It’s too advanced linguistically for many, and it just discourages them from learning. It should be taught as an advanced elective class in high school as preparation for college, though, I think. — Noah Te Stroete

Exactly. I am not trying to tell fans of Shakespeare that their "art" has no value. I am sure there are a few bright students in each school that would probably both enjoy and grow from a deep journey into one of Shakespeare's stories. But it seems obvious that most (not sure if I mean 51% or 91%, but I am confident it is somewhere in that range) young students will not enjoy it or benefit much.

Art is still taught at my children’s schools. Sketching, painting, pottery, sculpture, etc. If Zhou is teaching at a school that has eliminated art for budgetary reasons, then he probably isn’t teaching a lot of privileged kids. — Noah Te Stroete

I think we are just talking High School vs elementary school. While I did do some student teaching at low income schools, I am now in a mostly upper-middle class area, which makes for an easier job. But even these upper-middle class schools only have arts as an elective or extra-curricular (except poetry and literature).

Just for those elitists trying to paint anyone who doesn't think Shakespeare is objectively brilliant as uneducated, or inexperienced in the 'great bard's' works, here (if I've done the link right) is an MA graduate in Shakespearen Studies, explaining why he thinks the plays are deeply flawed. — Isaac

Ole Ole Ole! Brilliant stuff. I need to type more of my rants into google. Who knew such an article existed.

And anyone who completes a Master's Degree to prove to them self that something is wrong with that field of study, is kind of a bad-ass.

You can argue that the objective measures we currently use are meaningless or insignificant to you, — curiousnewbie

Not a single person in this thread has attempted to lay out these "objective measures" of art. If you know them, I would be happy to take a look and possibly adjust my position.

but art is made popular if it is loved by most people, — curiousnewbie

People in this thread may not know (not directed specifically at you curiousnewbie) but Transformers has dominated box offices for the last decade. 2 of the movies grossed over a billion dollars each in worldwide ticket sales (only 37 movies have grossed over a billion - and take a look, nearly ALL of them are much more Transformers-like than Shakespeare-like). So looking at popularity would suggest my side of the argument is correct.

so it is your job to try to convince people that the media you prefer is better on some measure . — curiousnewbie

Well I just supported my side using the measure of popularity. I do not view "popularity" as being a correct objective measure of art (my argument is basically there is no such thing), but if you do, that supports Transformers et al. If you can come up with more ways to "measure" art, then I suspect I will have more ways to show that Transformers succeeds with those as well (sorry, wonky sentence, I think it makes sense though).

They can’t do this with a film. There’s no room for interpretation in ‘The Transformers’, all they can do is watch it passively and then write an analysis of it. — Brett

Well @Terrapin Station answered that it is easy to get scripts, but even without them, what is the problem? There is plenty of room for interpretation in any movie. Of course, some more than others (something like the end of "Inception" is PURE interpretation, the director intentionally leaves the end open so the watcher can guess the meaning of the end...which is interpretation).

You used the phrase "watch it passively". That implies you understand that READING can be done "actively" or "passively". What is the difference between active reading and passive reading? Now apply that to movies or television. We can "actively" watch a movie. For example, simply pause it, and ask, what did the speaker mean with that sentence? Why did the director decide to use so much red? Can you apply what is happening to anything in your own life? I have never seen much value in that last one, but I am weird :smile:

If you give me an assignment for a Shakespeare reading, I believe I can come up with a Transformers lesson that teaches all the same concepts minus the analysis of 16th century jargon (If I can't do it with Transformers, I am sure I can using the Marvel universe or Fast & Furious or Die Hard or Lethal Weapon).

Just in the news yesterday, by the way--a high school that did their own production of the film, Alien: — Terrapin Station

Thanks. Another good example. Would these students have learned more if they did "Othello"? Would they be more, or less, interested drama, film, and television? (rhetorical questions aimed at everyone on that side of the argument)

It's logically impossible to say that it's objectively true that all interpretation of art is subjective since that is an interpretation of art. — NKBJ

That does not seem to be an interpretation of art. At most, it is an interpretation of the definition of art.

No. There is no 'good art' or 'bad art', nor is there any such thing as 'better' art. If the artist presents someting as art, it is art. Your part, and mine, is that we get to say "I like it" or "I don't like it". It's nothing more than personal taste. And every expression of personal taste is correct and unchallengeable, although other such expressions may contradict it. That's what personal taste is.

So no, there is not even "a little justification for this". — Pattern-chaser

Awesome stuff. My thoughts exactly. Unfortunately, I have struggled to sell that view (I am happy to have found a few like minded people here). I am open to advice if you have any ideas on how to convince people :grin:

I'm not a big believer in objectivity for any aspect of our emotional, intellectual, spiritual, and social lives. Science, morals, aesthetics. Everything always comes down to a matter of human values. Good or bad, right or wrong, true or false. But saying something is a matter of values is not the same as saying it is all a matter of preference. Values are a product of social, cultural, and personal factors. Biological factors. — T Clark

This seems intelligent and well thought out, but does it really apply to candy? I agree that SOMETIMES a "matter of value" is not the same as "matter of preference", but I feel things like candy and art (by definition) have their value ascribed by those who consume it. Each consumer decides. What values are you considering that would make candy "good" or "bad"?

I think learning to read, write, and speak is different from the other arts. — T Clark

Agreed. The ability to communicate quickly and clearly is a necessary base. But if I was planning to teach someone to read, write, and speak, when does Shakespeare come in? Shakespeare is for those who have already mastered these skills AND enjoy his writing/stories.

Similarly, if I was teaching someone to read/write/speak I would NEVER tell them to come this website (or likely any philosophy site). Few of us here even agree on basic definitions of words (and yet I assume we all communicate fine in our daily lives). What hope would someone with rudimentary language skills have?

That at least is the consensus of the art world. — Noah Te Stroete

I don't like the idea of consensus ever deciding what is right (it might give hints at best), but your line above highlights the "elitism" I was referring to. What is the "art world"? Is that "all art and everyone that enjoys it"? Or is it "a limited set of art works and those who study them"? If more people watched "Transformers" than viewed the Mona Lisa in 2014, does that make Transformers better? - despite this last bit proving my point, I still say consensus cannot possibly define good art.

That does not seem to be an interpretation of art. At most, it is an interpretation of the definition of art. — ZhouBoTong

In order to define art, you must interpret it.

Also, any interpretation is bound to the text/words. Otherwise you'd have no need for any art at all and (as in my example before with Terrapin) you could just stare at a loaf of bread and imagine all stories ever just by virtue of your imagination. You'd need neither Bay nor Shakespeare.

In order to define art, you must interpret it. — NKBJ

He means "an interpretation of art" in the sense of "here's what this painting is about in my view."

He's not saying that you don't have to think about art on a meta-level to define it.

The interpretation is bound to the text in the sense that it's not an interpretation of x (whatever particular "text") unless the person is thinking about x when stating the interpretation, but that produces no content restrictions on the interpretation. It just depends on how the person is thinking about x, and they could think about x in any way.

He means "an interpretation of art" in the sense of "here's what this painting is about in my view." — Terrapin Station

That is what I meant. Sorry to both of you if I jumped in the middle of something I didn't understand.

However, I am not sure of the disagreement:

That does not seem to be an interpretation of art. At most, it is an interpretation of the definition of art.
— ZhouBoTong

In order to define art, you must interpret it. — NKBJ

How does my quote contradict that? And your statement seems to prove you WERE talking about "an interpretation of the definition of art" not an interpretation of any piece of art. I am probably overly concerned with grammar and semantics, I think I understand the spirit of what you are getting at.

@praxis @T Clark

Well first, praxis, I was fairly amazed with your initial post. It seemed well thought out and very carefully worded. I liked it immediately. Then I thought, "wait which side of the argument would that post even fall under"? I read it a couple more times, and really thought it could go either way. Some of the words supported the post by @Pattern-chaser (who captured my thoughts in a more concise post), but some seemed to hint at something more. I am not asking you to take sides. I am just impressed that a post can contribute (quite a bit) to the conversation without actually making much of an argument...I will try to learn from that.

@T Clark and I were fairly opposed in certain aspects of this discussion, but I notice he also approved of your post:

It also really changes the texture of this whole discussion. It's hard to make the case that judgments of aesthetic quality are elitist if the artist knows to expect that judgment and perhaps welcomes it. — T Clark

I have some minor disagreement here, but I must recognize that this is as close as we will get to agreement (and should celebrate that praxis at least brought us closer than where we started).

How does my quote contradict that? And your statement seems to prove you WERE talking about "an interpretation of the definition of art" not an interpretation of any piece of art. I am probably overly concerned with grammar and semantics, I think I understand the spirit of what you are getting at. — ZhouBoTong

I don't know if he's being "cute" or if he really doesn't understand, but it's just NKBJ (perhaps pretending as if he's) not understanding scope and thus creating straw men.