The vibrant red appears to you as a symbol of love, but your friend is convinced it's a symbol of war.

那鮮豔的紅色在你看來是愛的象徵，但對你朋友而言，它代表戰爭

And where you see stars in a romantic sky, your friend interprets global warming-inducing pollutants.

而當你看到的是星星佈在浪漫的天際，你朋友卻把它們看作導致地球暖化的污染物

To settle the debate, you turn to the internet, where you read that the painting is a replica of the artist's first-grade art project:

為了結束這場爭論，你們決定求助於網路，並查到這幅畫是畫家一年級藝術作業的複製品

Red was her favorite color and the silver dots are fairies.

紅色是他最愛的顏色，而銀色斑點代表小仙子

You now know the exact intentions that led to the creation of this work.

你現在知道這幅創作背後確切的意思了

Are you wrong to have enjoyed it as something the artist didn't intend?

你沒有照畫家的意向欣賞它，這樣錯了嗎？

Do you enjoy it less now that you know the truth?

知道事實後有減少你對它的欣賞嗎？

Just how much should the artist's intention affect your interpretation of the painting?

畫家的意向應該對你解讀畫作有多少影響呢？

It's a question that's been tossed around by philosophers and art critics for decades, with no consensus in sight.

這個問題已經被哲學家和藝評提出好幾十年了，卻還未見共識

In the mid-20th century,

在二十世紀中期

literary critic W.K. Wimsatt and philosopher Monroe Beardsley argued that artistic intention was irrelevant.

文學評論家 W.K. Wimsatt 和哲學家 Monroe Beardsley 提出認為藝術意圖並不重要

They called this the Intentional Fallacy:

他們將其稱為「意圖謬誤」——

the belief that valuing an artist's intentions was misguided.

認為人們重視藝術家的意圖 這是被誤導的想法

Their argument was twofold:

他們的論點分為兩個部份：

First, the artists we study are no longer living,

第一，我們研究的藝術家們早已不復存在

never recorded their intentions,

他們的意圖從未被記錄

or are simply unavailable to answer questions about their work.

或單純是我們得不到關於作品問題的解答

Second, even if there were a bounty of relevant information,

第二，即便有許多相關資訊

Wimsatt and Beardsley believed

Wimsatt 和 Beardsley 認為

it would distract us from the qualities of the work itself.

那也會干擾我們欣賞作品本身的品質

They compared art to a dessert:

他們將藝術比喻為甜點

When you taste a pudding, the chef's intentions don't affect whether you enjoy its flavor or texture.

當你品嘗一個布丁時，師傅的意圖不會影響你喜歡它的口味或口感與否

All that matters, they said, is that the pudding "works."

他們說，一切重點在於那個布丁「可行」

Of course, what "works" for one person might not "work" for another.

當然，對一個人來說「可行」的東西對另一個人不一定「可行」

And since different interpretations appeal to different people,

而且既然不同人投合不同的詮釋

the silver dots in our painting could be reasonably interpreted as fairies, stars, or pollutants.

我們畫作中的銀色斑點也可以被合理地解讀為小仙子、星星、或污染物

By Wimsatt and Beardsley's logic,

以 Wimsatt 和 Beardsley 的邏輯而言

the artist's interpretation of her own work would just be one among many equally acceptable possibilities.

藝術家對其作品的詮釋，只會是眾多同等合理可能的詮釋之一

If you find this problematic, you might be more in line with Steven Knapp and Walter Benn Michaels,

如果你覺得這說法有問題，你或許會與 Steven Knapp 和 Walter Benn Michaels 更有共鳴

two literary theorists who rejected the Intentional Fallacy.

他們是兩位反對「意圖謬誤」的文學理論家

They argued that an artist's intended meaning was not just one possible interpretation, but the only possible interpretation.

他們聲辯藝術家想表達的意義，並不只是其中一個可能的詮釋方式，而是唯一的。

For example, suppose you're walking along a beach

舉個例，假設你正沿著海邊散步

and come across a series of marks in the sand that spell out a verse of poetry.

偶然發現沙灘上有一連串拼出一節詩文的記號

Knapp and Michaels believed

Knapp 和 Michaels 認為

the poem would lose all meaning if you discovered these marks were not the work of a human being, but an odd coincidence produced by the waves.

如果你發現這些記號並不是人類所做，而是偶然被海浪製造出的巧合，這段詩將會失去意義

They believed an intentional creator is what makes the poem subject to understanding at all.

他們認為一個帶有意圖的創作者，才能讓這段詩有被了解的意涵

Other thinkers advocate for a middle ground,

其他思想家則倡導中立觀點

suggesting that intention is just one piece in a larger puzzle.

他們認為意圖只是一幅拼圖中的一塊

Contemporary philosopher Noel Carroll took this stance,

當代哲學家 Noel Carroll 就是抱持這個觀點

arguing that an artist's intentions are relevant to their audience;

他提出藝術家的意圖和觀眾是相關的

the same way a speaker's intentions

就像說話者的意圖

are relevant to the person they're engaging in conversation.

和他們談話中的對象有關一樣

To understand how intentions function in conversation,

要了解意圖在談話中的功用

Carroll said to imagine someone holding a cigarette and asking for a match.

Carroll 說，想像一個人拿著菸向你要火柴

You respond by handing them a lighter,

你的回應是拿給他一隻打火機

gathering that their motivation is to light their cigarette.

你認為他們的動機是點菸

The words they used to ask the question are important,

他們問話的用字很重要

but the intentions behind the question dictate your understanding and ultimately, your response.

但問話背後的用意決定了你的理解並最後影響到──你的回應

So which end of this spectrum do you lean towards?

你傾向哪種看法呢？

Do you, like Wimsatt and Beardsley, believe that

你像 Wimsatt 和 Beardsley 一樣，認為

when it comes to art, the proof should be in the pudding?

談到藝術時，證據會在布丁裡嗎？

Or do you think that an artist's plans and motivations for their work affect its meaning?

還是你認為藝術家對於作品的計畫和動機會影響它的意義呢？

Artistic interpretation is a complex web that will probably never offer a definitive answer.

藝術的詮釋是一面錯綜複雜的網，它可能永遠不會提供一個最佳解答