Ripples

If you look up at the sky (during day). Would you see light, Or will you be blinded?

Last semester, I had the wonderful opportunity to participate in the study exchange programme with King’s College London (KCL), United Kingdom. The programme spanned 5 months, allowing me to take courses across different departments at KCL. It came as a surprise to me that it still took me a while to adjust to a new environment, despite this being my second time studying abroad.

In Philosophy of Arts class, I have been taught two major schools of thought regarding interpretation of arts – hypothetical intentionalism (interpretation of arts is based on what is written in the text alongside other literature-relevant evidence such as the theme of the authors’ previous works) and modest actual intentionalism (interpretation of arts is based on what the author says they want to convey, but such has to be supported by what is written in the text). It seems to me that hypothetical intentionalism and modest actual intentionalism rely on textual evidence, alongside other literature-relevant evidence, to interpret a work of art. The extent to which each evidence plays in the interpretation of a work of art varies depending on the school of thought. I just wonder whether such an approach would do justice to the author, as language may not fully convey what the author wants to express. Let me clarify my point.