Intentional Fallacy, may be worth a look
- I am pretty sure Berger texts would come into play here *ENSURE I CHECK*
I will still have avoided my intial problem, an accurate representation becomes the decision of the wisdom of the crowd would it not?
perhaps we should resurrect the author
"New Criticism"
In 1946, William K. Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley published a classic and controversial New Critical essay entitled "The Intentional Fallacy", in which they argued strongly against the relevance of an author's intention,
or "intended meaning" in the analysis of a literary work. For Wimsatt
and Beardsley, the words on the page were all that mattered; importation
of meanings from outside the text was considered irrelevant, and
potentially distracting.
The intentional Fallacy
"the design or intention of the author is neither available nor
desirable as a standard for judging the success of a work of literary
art."
W. K. Wimsatt, Monroe Beardsley
Wimsatt and Beardsley divide the evidence used in making interpretations
of literary texts (although their analysis can be applied equally well
to any type of art) into three categories:
Internal Evidence
External Evidence
Contextual Evidence
So perhaps I have saved my argument, the artist's intent is irrelevant, but we can still have an artist/author. Perhaps in this case there was not so much intent, or is there was we can't trust it because of the inherent bias behind it!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Criticism
criticism to new criticism
New Criticism is frequently seen as “uninterested in the human meaning, the social function and effect of literature.
Need I read affective fallacy?
Affective fallacy is a term from literary criticism
used to refer to the supposed error of judging or evaluating a text on
the basis of its emotional effects on a reader. The term was coined by W.K. Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley as a principle of New Criticism.
Simon Johnson
www.thephilosophicalphotographer.co.uk
Digging out of the hole
Posts
