The meaning of a text - or more generally, a work of art - appears to be something constantly taken for granted: It seems normal for a reader of a text to express his or her thoughts on the work's meaning without giving much thought to where that meaning actually originates from. For example, the world of literary criticism is full of analysis of Shakespeare's Hamlet which claims that the title character fails to kill Claudius, his uncle and step-father, sooner in the events of the tragedy because of an Oedipal complex surrounding his relationship with his mother. Having been written more than three-hundred years before the advent of Psychoanalysis, it is highly improbable and perhaps ultimately impossible that Shakespeare could have intended for the text to suggest such an implication. The debate then shifts itself to the question of whether or not Shakespeare's intentions in fact matter as the reader constructs his or her own meaning of the work. In his essay "In Defense of the Author," E.D. Hirsch, Jr. explores the views of those who argue against the importance of the author.
Hirsch begins his essay with an air of skepticism, stating, "It is a task for the historian of culture to explain why there has been in the past four decades a heavy and largely victorious assault on the sensible belief that a text means what its author meant." His challenge to future historians evokes the intentionalist belief that the best interpretation of a work is derived from the author's intentions. Many views contest this approach to the derivation of meaning from a text, both from realist and anti-realist schools of thought. While the realist approaches to the derivation of meaning (anti-intentionalism, hypothetical intentionalism and audience normalism) share the notion that there are linguistic norms which govern acceptable interpretations with the intentionalist view, anti-realists deny that governance of linguistic norms. "In Defense of the Author" takes various approaches to interpretation into consideration before dispelling many of them.
He advocates giving special attention to the view which claims "The most valid reading of a text is the 'best' reading" because it involves "the problem of value." Hirsch's use of the word "best" is of particular interest as its function within the sentence is slightly ambiguous. The word in further unpacked in a footnote where Hirsch elaborates on the different interpretations regarding the implications of "best." He suggests, "the idea of bestness is widely used to embrace indiscriminately both the idea of validity and of such aesthetic values as richness, tension, and complexity." Ultimately, the word "best" evokes the anti-realist view of utilitarianism, which claims the best interpretation provides the most pleasure for the audience. In his essay "Art, Intention and Conversation," Noel Carroll discusses this view in regards to the 1959 film Plan 9 from Outer Space.
Directed by Edward D. Wood Jr., Plan 9 from Outer Space is often regarded as "the worst movie ever made." It is full of poor editing where scenes switch between day and night continuously, cheap sets including grave stones (obviously) made from cardboard, forced and cliched plot points and acting more horrific than any of the actual "drama" that occurs in the film. Then in the 1980's, with the advent of Cinema of Transgression, the film gained a new level of appreciation. The movement sought to break the "laziness known as structuralism" in films and proposed "transformation through transgression."
In this new light, Plan 9 from Outer Space assumed many positive characteristics for its transgressions from the structuralism of Hollywood filmmaking. The errors in its craft begin to lend itself to a comedic interpretation of the film, which in turn offers more aesthetic gratification for the audience. This approach to interpretation is justified under the guise of "bestness" as discussed by Hirsch.
Dead by 1978, seven years before the spawning of Transgressive Cinema, it's hard to believe that Ed Wood constructed this film with this particular aesthetic in mind. Moreover, as the film was released in 1959, it is even more unlikely he would have made the film with a transgressive intention for an audience nearly thirty years from having the notion of Transgressive Cinema. Ed Wood simply made a bad movie.
Carroll's discussion against this utilitarian approach to the construction of meaning emphasizes the intention of the author, however there appears to be an issue central to the intentionalist derivation of meaning: By imposing their own understanding of the author's intentions, it is possible for the actual intentions of the author to be completely disregarded.
In a recent episode of South Park, four fourth graders write a novel simply for the sake of being disgusting. Discovered by one of the boys' unassuming parents, adults begin to construct their own meaning for the work including in depth social commentary using the characters as symbols for different aspects of society. The boys argue vehemently that it was written simply for the sake of being offensive and has no deeper meaning.
By assuming the position of intentionalists, the adults have completely nullified the actual intentions of the authors. The text still has meaning, however the original intended meaning remains unknown and unconsidered except by the original authors. The irony of the argument is that by applying an intentionalist view, the adults have actually assumed the role of utilitarians without realizing it.
Hirsch discusses this issue in regards to ignoring the author's intentions by stating, "To banish the original author as the determiner of meaning was to reject the only compelling normative principle that could lend validity to an interpretation. On the other hand," he continues, "it might be the case that there does not really exist a viable normative ideal that governs the interpretation of text." Could this indicate that the only remaining approach to governance of meaning is the counter-intuitive Nihilist view, which claims that all linguistically acceptable interpretations are equally good?
No comments:
Post a Comment