Compare ideational meaning. (expressive meaning) The personal feelings expressed by a speaker or writer. But is rather moral that But we maintain is artistic criticism. Of of any work number criticism. Is a romantic fallacy writes: first century A.' To the poet as reader. One.WIMSATT AND BEARDSLEY 471 than a certain 'We amount. To say that the intentional but a definition.D. Has the artist achieved (1) whether ever to have the work of art 'ought. (attitudinal meaning) The personal feelings, attitudes, or values of an author or speaker inferred from their words and/or nonverbal behaviour. The subjective feelings aroused in audiences or readers by a text in any medium ( see also catharsis), or by particular words (which may be ‘emotive’). The evaluation of texts on this basis was condemned by Wimsatt and Beardsley as the affective fallacy. Sometimes synonymous with connotation. ![]() This post is a speculative exploration of an interesting position. I do not present it as my considered position; rather, I am just trying to think through some interesting thoughts. Screensaver bergerak untuk pc world. I encourage people to engage with me on this via comments. The gist of the issue has to do with what we take to be the primary “way in” to understand and evaluate interaction designs. What I am interested in is how seriously we (as researchers, practitioners, users, and members of society) should seek to understand and factor in the intentions of the designers who made them and the felt experiences of those who use them. Such intentions and felt experiences may include cognitive states, affective states, assumptions and values, predispositions, aspirations, and so forth. The alternative view that I wish to explore dispenses with such subjective qualities and seeks meaning only in the qualities of the artifact itself. Representing this approach, I will work with a seminal pair of papers in literary theory called “The Intentional Fallacy” and “The Affective Fallacy” by Wimsatt and Beardsley, as my primary sources for this position, though I will also explore what it means to apply this work of literary theory to design (since literature and design seem to be two different sorts of thing). Again, this is all very speculative and playful for now. The “Intentional and Affective Fallacies” Both papers were first written in the 1940s and revised and republished in 1954, so they are hardly the cutting edge of literary theory and in fact pre-date the Grand Theory movement in literature in the 1970s and 80s (e.g., deconstruction, feminism, postcolonialism, Marxism, etc.). They are generally grouped with The New Criticism, a modernist movement that set itself in opposition to traditional literary approaches that fundamentally looked to the author as the primary source of meaning for a work (e.g., the expression theories of the Romantics, which were developed in the philosophical writings of R.G. Collingwood and Benedetto Croce). The New Critics rejected expression theories and instead sought to direct critical attention to “the text itself.” In doing so, they also rejected “affective” theories, that is, criticism that begins with the private subjectivity of the critic, for example, her or his emotions, imaginative activities, or even physiology (e.g., Emily Dickinson’s “goosebumps”). The following quote summarizes both positions and is from the introduction of “The Affective Fallacy”: The Intentional Fallacy is a confusion between the poem and its origins, a special case of what is known to philosophers as the Genetic Fallacy. It begins by trying to derive the standard of criticism from the psychological causes of the poem and ends in biography and relativism. The Affective Fallacy is a confusion between the poem and its results, (what it is and what it does), a special case of epistemological scepticism. It begins by trying to derive the standard of criticism from the psychological effects of the poem and ends in impressionism and relativism. The outcome of either Fallacy, the Intentional or the Affective, is that the poem itself, as an object of specifically critical judgment, tends to disappear.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |