Objectivity in the Criticism of Art Works: Based on Noel Carroll s Views

objectivity with regard to interpretation of an artwork means being allowed to talk about true or false interpretations. Some theorists, call them anti-intentionalist, see discovering of the artwork’s meaning with reference to the intentions of the author as problematic. Some anti-intentionalists, including Roland Barthes, basically deny objectivity in interpretation of artworks. Others, including Monroe Beardsley, accept the objectivity in interpretation but ascribe it to the context. On the other side of the debate, some intentionalists, e.g. Hirsch, Levinson, and Carroll, see the intentions of the author as the ground for objectivity. The present article indicates that the intentionalists’ arguments are stronger and more consistent with the practices of art and criticism. Furthermore, there is also a debate that whether the intentions of the actual author are the ones that should be looked for or those that can be ascribed to a hypothetical author. In this respect, we illustrate that Noel Carroll’s actual intentionalism provides us with the best answers.