So Carroll wrote something like this on Page 5 of On Criticism:
Whereas I maintain that evaluation is central to the criticism of art, many of the reigning theories of criticism today appear to treat interpretation as key. But I can even envision examples of criticism sans interpretation, so long as they do include evaluation.
I am a little bit confused by this. “Examples of criticism sans interpretation.” What does he mean here? How can someone critique something without interpretation firstly? In my point of view, I believe one of the premises of good critique is understanding. Only if we understand what the creator and the work are really talking about, can we critique them precisely and deeply. Maybe I have encountered the difference between “understanding” and “interpretation” here again. If interpretation doesn’t include any factor of understanding, then I’m able to get the gist of Carroll’s words. What do you think?
4 comments
Comments feed for this article
January 17, 2013 at 11:33 am
Katie O'Donnell
I wonder if the difference has to do with making assumptions? Where with interpretations one makes more assumptions but not so with evaluation. Good question…hmm…
January 17, 2013 at 11:41 am
jeffreybardzell
I wrote about this last week in response to a similar question by Guo Zhang. For Carroll, interpretation* is fundamentally semantic, about what something means. Yet there are some works that we analyze* and evaluate* that are not especially meaningful, such as (again: Carroll’s example) an Amish quilt with a visually pleasing checkerboard pattern on it. So to articulate why that quilt is visually pleasing, without talking about what the pattern means, would be an example of criticism* without interpretation*.
* In case you haven’t read my other posts today, I’m putting asterisks by terms that Carroll uses in a narrow and technical sense that is not the same as the way we use the same term in everyday English.
January 17, 2013 at 8:39 pm
raynezhou
Thank you Jeff. Your interpretation today in the class was indeed very helpful.
January 17, 2013 at 12:05 pm
sborude
I think what Caroll says it that interpretation is a part of criticism but primarily criticism is evaluation and then interpretation becomes a sub activity