The And Its Influence On The Art World

1290 WordsOct 22, 20156 Pages
Interpretations of artworks have been widely valued among the art world for centuries. Arguments whether an artwork means one thing, multiple things, or nothing at all is a question that circles the art world, and cause art critics to disagree when interpreting a work. Nihilism, monism, pluralism, intentionalism, romanticism, anti-intentionalsim, and post-structuralism all contain philosopher’s theories that can give art viewers the key to giving meaning to a creation. I prefer the views of pluralism, and post-structuralism when looking for the answer of how to interpret an artwork such as J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series as with most fictional books. Pluralism does not contain one completely right answer, but can disregard certain…show more content…
I agree with the thought “a good work allows for multiple interpretations” because when I read J.K. Rowling’s series, I became immediately consumed in the fictional world, experiencing and interpreting things as I saw fit. I read the books and never once thought of Dumbledore as gay, but other’s that read the books, and the author whom wrote them interpreted him as gay. Neither their interpretations nor my own are wrong according to the pluralist view because both are plausible, viable interpretations. While in the books there is not a single statement that clearly displays Dumbledore as gay, there is also not a statement that clearly displays him being heterosexual, either. With that thought in mind, one could assume that the sexual orientation could not possibly be knowledge attained by anyone because it is not disclosed in the book, but that does not give any justification to dismissing the interpretation of him being either hetero or homosexual. The pluralist view hits a dead end because there is always the open question of how to distinguish between a plausible and implausible interpretation. Most people would argue from a monist stand point that because the author said the meaning was one thing then they must be right, but post-structuralist Barthes says that the author is not meant to be the “arbiter-of-meaning” (Hicks, 83), but rather the work itself. So with this suggestion, the author seems to not have complete say in what the book or
Open Document