"我什么也教不了他好烧和最佳读物

Q4 Social Sciences Dialogue Pub Date : 2024-01-24 DOI:10.1017/s0012217324000015
Jason Holt
{"title":"\"我什么也教不了他好烧和最佳读物","authors":"Jason Holt","doi":"10.1017/s0012217324000015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Steven Burns argues that rich works of art tend to yield best readings rather than ambiguous interpretations. This is no mere statistical claim. Rather, Burns holds that such richness makes ambiguity less likely or sustainable. As a champion of multiple interpretability, I criticize Burns’s account. Adding detail to an ambiguous work may not disambiguate it and may in fact increase the range of equally rewarding interpretations. Ambiguous works are furthermore numerous and noteworthy, and range across various artforms. All else being equal, ambiguity appears to add to rather than detract from the richness of artworks.","PeriodicalId":11232,"journal":{"name":"Dialogue","volume":"7 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"“Nothing I Could Teach Him”: Good Burns and Best Readings\",\"authors\":\"Jason Holt\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/s0012217324000015\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Steven Burns argues that rich works of art tend to yield best readings rather than ambiguous interpretations. This is no mere statistical claim. Rather, Burns holds that such richness makes ambiguity less likely or sustainable. As a champion of multiple interpretability, I criticize Burns’s account. Adding detail to an ambiguous work may not disambiguate it and may in fact increase the range of equally rewarding interpretations. Ambiguous works are furthermore numerous and noteworthy, and range across various artforms. All else being equal, ambiguity appears to add to rather than detract from the richness of artworks.\",\"PeriodicalId\":11232,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Dialogue\",\"volume\":\"7 4\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Dialogue\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0012217324000015\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dialogue","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0012217324000015","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

史蒂文-伯恩斯(Steven Burns)认为,内容丰富的艺术作品往往能产生最佳解读,而不是模棱两可的解释。这并不仅仅是统计学上的说法。相反,伯恩斯认为,这种丰富性使得模糊性更不可能或更难持续。作为多重可解释性的拥护者,我批评伯恩斯的说法。为模棱两可的作品增加细节未必能消除歧义,事实上可能会增加同样有价值的解释的范围。此外,模棱两可的作品不胜枚举,值得关注,而且涉及各种艺术形式。在其他条件相同的情况下,模糊性似乎会增加而不是减少艺术作品的丰富性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
“Nothing I Could Teach Him”: Good Burns and Best Readings
Steven Burns argues that rich works of art tend to yield best readings rather than ambiguous interpretations. This is no mere statistical claim. Rather, Burns holds that such richness makes ambiguity less likely or sustainable. As a champion of multiple interpretability, I criticize Burns’s account. Adding detail to an ambiguous work may not disambiguate it and may in fact increase the range of equally rewarding interpretations. Ambiguous works are furthermore numerous and noteworthy, and range across various artforms. All else being equal, ambiguity appears to add to rather than detract from the richness of artworks.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Dialogue
Dialogue Social Sciences-Development
CiteScore
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
39
期刊介绍: Dialogue is the official journal of the Canadian Philosophical Association. Its purpose is to publish high quality peer-reviewed scholarly articles, book symposia, critical notices, and book reviews in English and in French, in support of the Association"s mandate to promote philosophical scholarship and education. It is open to contributions in all branches of philosophy and from any philosophical perspective. Readers include professional teachers of philosophy, graduate students, and others with an interest in the field. Published for the Canadian Philosophical Association
期刊最新文献
La résistance interne chez Nicole Oresme. Étude sur sa Physique et son commentaire latin au traité Du ciel A Leibnizian Antirealist Account of Fictional Characters The Constitution of Virtual Objects Comment choisir son camp. Interroger l'expérience et évaluer les hypothèses dans la Lettre sur les aveugles de Diderot Propriété et gestion des entreprises chez Rawls. L’ébauche rawlsienne des entreprises sous la démocratie de propriétaires et sous le socialisme démocratique
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1