The Anti-Intentionalist View of Art

2min Snip

00:00

Play full episode

Summary

Transcript

Episode notes

I think that the anti-intentional stance is the counterintuitive one for so many people. Like, where it's just too hard to like, we even impute intentionality on things that are created by computers. I don't take it as determinative of meaning, if I can even make sense of that. And I think that sometimes it's going to be a lot more interesting than others. Sometimes it'll influence my own way of understanding the text. Other times, it won't be completely irrelevant, but it might not be that significant either. That's all.

What’s the meaning of a work of art? Does the text mean just what the author intends it to mean? Does it matter what Kubrick and Arthur C. Clark thinks about the end of 2001? Or is the artist’s interpretation just one interpretation among many once the text is out in the world? We explore the question of authorial intent, and brace yourselves - this is just about as postmodern as David gets.

Plus – do we have what it takes to get an invite to the thought criminals club?

Links

The Party is Canceled [newyorker.com]

Was I Wrong About The Irishman? by Thomas Flight [youtube.com]

Authorial Intent [wikipedia.org]