On Justifying the Choice of Interpretive Theories

Danneberg, Lutz; Müller, Hans-Harald

doi:10.2307/430188

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Hirsch does not deal with the question of whether Kant's imperative appropriately covers cases of non-linguistic artistic expressions, such as dances or paintings. Lutz Danneberg and Hans-Harald Miiller (1984) discuss this and other difficulties with Hirsch's extension of Kant. 4.…”

Section: Aesthetic Inquiry In the Choreography Classmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intentionalism, Anti-Intentionalism, and Aesthetic Inquiry: Implications for the Teaching of Choreography

Lavender¹

1997

Dance Res. J.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of the most heated debates in modern literary and aesthetic theory concerns the relevance to criticism in general, and to interpretation specifically, of information about an author/artist's intentions in creating a particular work. This intentionalist/anti-intentionalist debate is an important one for dance educators to examine and discuss with students, since teachers' beliefs about the relevance of an artist's intentions determine in large part the way they interpret and judge dances (and other works of art), and mentor student choreographers and critics. The critical advice of mentors who hold intentionalist assumptions naturally tends to be quite different from the input of those holding anti-intentionalist views. The debate over artists' intentions began in earnest in 1946 with the publication of a provocative and now famous essay entitled "The Intentional Fallacy" by W.K. Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley (1). In this work the authors attacked the intentionalist idea that to achieve a valid, or true, interpretation of a work we must ascertain whatever meaning its maker intended it to possess. The essay laid the groundwork for a rigorous anti-intentionalism, which held that works of art and literature are autonomous entities whose meanings are carried entirely by their internal structures and do not depend on the so-called meaning-intentions of their creators. Dance students and teachers alike often struggle with the central issues in this debate. Should the artist have a specific plan, goal, or semantic content to express firmly in mind before beginning to work, or will meaning emerge through the work process itself? Should the critic investigate the artist's intentions, or simply focus on the immediacy of the work itself? The way one answers these kinds of questions determines to a large extent how one will proceed in crafting a work, and in interpreting and evaluating others' works. Interestingly, dance students and their teachers ordinarily go about the business of making and critiquing dances in general accordance with one of the two sides in the debate without being aware of the basic arguments for, and the underlying assumptions of, each position. There are two likely reasons for this. First, the standard literature on teaching and learning choreography

show abstract

Section: Aesthetic Inquiry In the Choreography Classmentioning

confidence: 99%