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?