Noel Carroll wrote that some art is “beneath interpretation.” He uses the example of an Amish quilt, stating:
“it may simply be an object of beauty, intended to brighten the bedroom and make it habitable. But since the work is not in the business of communicating anything, it leaves nothing over for interpretation.”

Is it possible for anything to be beneath interpretation? It doesn’t matter how mundane an object is, it’s always open for interpretation. If it were not, our minds would not recognize it as an object. But because we see the object and recognize it, we are interpreting the object.

As a son of a professional quilter, I’ve grown familiar with quilts. Each pattern has a history and invites people to interpret the quilt. While the depth of the interpretation may not be clear to a non-quilter, the invitation to interpret is still there.