Peter Lamarque

Various aspects of poetic meaning are discussed, centred on the relation of form and content. A C Bradley's thesis of form-content identity, suitably reformulated, is defended against criticisms by Peter Kivy. It is argued that the unity of form-content is not discovered in poetry so much as demanded of it when poetry is read 'as poetry'. A shift of emphasis from talking about 'meaning' in poetry to talking about 'content' is promoted, as is a more prominent role for 'experience' in characterising responses to poetry and its value. It is argued that the key to poetic meaning lies less in a theory of meaning, more in a theory of poetry, where what matters are modes of reading poetry. Content-identity in poetry is said to be 'interest-relative' such that no absolute answer, independent of the interests of the questioner, can determine when a poem and a paraphrase have the same content. Interpretation of poetry need not focus exclusively on meaning, but on ways in which the experience of a poem can be heightened.

The paper examines the relation between interpretation and the objects of interpretation, principally, but not exclusively, in the realm of art. Several theses are defended: that interpretation cannot proceed without prior determination of the kind of thing being interpreted; that the mode of interpretation is determined by the nature of its object; that interpretation, of a meaning‐determining rather than generic kind, focuses at the level of works, not descending to a bedrock of “mere objects”; that because works and their appropriate mode of interpretation are constituted by convention‐bound practices, it follows that no clear line can be drawn between properties “in” a work and those “imputed to” it through interpretive procedures endorsed by the practice. The debate over constructivism or “imputationalism”– between Margolis and Krausz, on the one hand, and Stecker and Levinson, on the other – is engaged with an attempt to show a core of truth in each of the conflicting theories, once the right distinction between object, work, and interpretation is in place.

Martin Warner's subtle and far-reaching synthesis of philosophical theology and philosophy of language belongs in a cluster of papers he has written on related topics so it would be helpful to begin by setting out this wider context. His concerns overall cover three interlocking subjects: biblical interpretation, biblical translation, and reform of the liturgy. All pose a central conundrum, which in its briefest formulation is just this: what kind of meaning is involved in each case? Warner's particular focus is on the role of distinctions like content and style, truth and connotation, literal and figurative, ultimately semantics and pragmatics.

AS THE twentieth century comes to a close and the twenty-first dawns, the British Journal of Aesthetics begins its fortieth volume and enters its fortieth year. This seems an apt moment, or a good excuse, for a special issue, prefaced by a few general reflections, through the lens of the journal, on nearly half a century of aesthetics and on the prospects ahead. Strictly speaking, the fortieth anniversary of the journal does not fall until the autumn of 2000 as it was in the autumn of 1960 that the first issue appeared. But there is a seductiveness in round numbers and the coincidence of the start of volume 40 with the start of the new millen- nium is justification enough for special attention.1 In fact self-reflection has been a rare event in the BJA. There have been few editorials and only two previous Special Issues, one commemorating the eightieth birthday of the founding editor, Harold Osborne, in 1985 (vol. 25, no. 2), the other in 1994 (vol. 34, no. 1), a collection of papers on the theme of repres- entation. The editorial voice is seldom heard in the journal, at least in the form of observations about the journal’s contents. Both Harold Osborne and Terry Diffey, the two previous editors, were modestly reticent about the development of the journal that they did so much to create and consolidate. On occasion they did publish their own essays and reviews so their ideas on specific topics in aesthetics were on display. Indeed the 1977 volume contained no fewer than four essays and five reviews by Osborne while he was editor. But editorial commentary as such has been light. That said, it has been a feature of the BJA from its inception that the editor’s own stamp has been imprinted on the contents, as a consequence of the large degree of autonomy each editor has possessed in selecting material to publish

The paper considers what kinds of things are musical, literary, pictorial and sculptural works, how they relate to physical objects or abstract types, and what their identity and survival conditions are. Works are shown to be cultural objects with essential intentional and relational properties. These essential properties are connected to conditions of production and conditions of reception, of both a generic and work-specific kind. It is argued that work-identity is value-laden, whereby essential to the survival of a work is the quality of the experience the work affords. However, the overall stance is realist, defending the view that works are real, perceivable, and objectively characterisable