Kalle Puolakka

Relativism and Intentionalism in Interpretation: Davidson, Hermeneutics, and Pragmatism applies a rich philosophical perspective to questions central to the interpretation of art. Puolakka uses discussions of the relativity of interpretations to demonstrate that the pluralistic attitude towards art that characterizes pragmatism and hermeneutics can be combined with a view stressing the role of authorial intentions. Academics concerned with the philosophy of art and aesthetics will find unique and worthwhile contributions to the study here

This article considers the validity and strength of Richard Rorty’s pragmatist theory of interpretation in the light of two ethical issues related to literature and interpretation. Rorty’s theory is rejected on two grounds. First, it is argued that his unrestrained account of interpretation is incompatible with the distinctive moral concerns that have been seen to restrict the scope and nature of valid approaches to artworks. The second part of the paper claims that there is no indispensable relationship between supporting Rorty’s pragmatist theory of interpretation and the important place that is attached to literature in the liberal society outlined by him. A reading of Donald Davidson’s texts on literary language and interpretation implies that an intentionalist theory of interpretation can accommodate those features that Rorty values in literature as well.

This article tries to show that Richard Shusterman's pragmatist challenge to Arthur Danto's philosophy of art fails. Three individual criticisms of Danto are extracted from Shusterman's texts, and they are all considered unsuccessful. First, I shall argue that Danto's theory allows much more room for aesthetic experience than Shusterman's criticism suggests. Second, essential to Danto's philosophy of art is the distinction between art and reality, and by framing that distinction in terms of Danto's understanding of philosophical problems, Danto's theory can be seen not to involve the sort of distinction between art and reality that Shusterman's “wrapper model”–criticism presumes. Third, it is argued that Shusterman's way of contesting Danto's philosophy of art by offering a different reading of Andy Warhol's Brillo Box than the one Shusterman presumes Danto to hold does not, eventually, manage to undermine the starting point of Danto's philosophy of art. The article ends by presenting a critical remark on Shusterman's pragmatist aesthetics drawn from Danto's theory.