The Verbal Icon: Studies in the Meaning of Poetry [Paperback]

W.K. Wimsatt (Author)

Editorial Reviews

Review

"Yale ReviewThis is criticism in terms of value and of structure.... Consistent and impressive." -- New Republic

"One of the major works of criticism in English." -- Modern Language Review

Product Details

• Paperback: 320 pages
• Publisher: The University Press of Kentucky (December 31, 1954)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0813101115
• ISBN-13: 978-0813101118
• Product Dimensions: 8.5 x 5.4 x 0.7 inches
• Shipping Weight: 9.6 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 5.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (10 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #727,331 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

3 of 3 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Understand the Intentional Fallacy notion of textual interpretation, December 21, 2008

By 

Michael A Neulander "Political Philosophy" (VA) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)    (TOP 1000 REVIEWER)    (REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Verbal Icon: Studies in the Meaning of Poetry (Hardcover)

I read this book for a graduate seminar on the philosophy of art. W. K. Wimsatt's, "Verbal Icon," takes a "shot across the bow" of the neo-Romantic artworld's belief that an artwork reflects what the artist means or intends it to mean. Wimsatt's argument is that artistic intention is irrelevant when it comes to the interpretation of an artist's work. At the time, this was a groundbreaking theory that seemed to give critical support to the new Abstract Expressionist works created by such pioneer artists as Jackson Pollock. However, most of Wimsatt's "intentional fallacy" argument takes aim at the written word of poetry and literature. He argues, "That literary works are self-sufficient entities, whose properties are decisive in checking interpretations and judgments. This is sometimes called the Principle of Autonomy, and it is of course the subject of much dispute." It is in the artform of literature, that their theory has created the biggest stir and much "push back" to their notion, by accusing them of metaphorically "murdering the author" by arguing that once a work is written, an artist's intentions no longer have any bearing on the work.

Wimsatt's intentional fallacy notion created quite a stir within the artworld when he opened his argument with the statement, "That the design or intention of the author is neither available nor desirable as a standard for judging the success of a work of literary art, and it seems to us that this is a principle which goes deep into some differences in the history of critical attitudes." The "deep differences" of critical attitudes that Wimsatt speaks about points directly to the artform of literature, which since the nineteenth century, was dominated by the neo-Romantic adherents of the "expression" theory. It is important to understand what Wimsatt is essentially arguing against in their intentional fallacy theory, which is what is at the very core of the expression theory. A basic tenant of the expression theory is the idea when engaging an artwork, that it is important one needs to recognize the power of the artwork's ability in being able to focus on the mind of both the creator and the audience. Thus, expression theorists expect artworks will produce certain human emotions in the audience. The expression theory correctly recognizes that art, especially literature, possesses a certain power in being able to articulate the communicative and educative power of the mind and emotions of the artist to the audience.

Wimsatt supported his argument with several axioms. Their first one was that, "A poem does not come into existence by accident." However, although he agrees that the cause of the poem is through the mind of an author, he does not believe that the author's design or intention should be used as a standard to judge the poem's ultimate worth as successful literature. Therefore, unlike the expression theory, only the artwork matters. Thus, for Wimsatt, the artist, (in this case the author), has no connection to the work once it is published since the reader will interpret the text free of trying to deduce artistic intent or meaning.

This idea of textual meaning and authorial meaning not necessarily being the same thing, paves the way for another axiom Wimsatt employs to defend his intentional fallacy theory which is, "Judging a poem is like judging a pudding or a machine. One demands that it work." In addition, he argues that once the author publishes a poem it really does not belong to her or to the critics, it is in the public domain. The poem belongs to a realm of language that is public in nature and is subject to public scrutiny as to its success or failure as a form of art or communication. Therefore, Wimsatt argues that a poem "works" because within the words it communicates its meaning and is understood by the reader.

I recommend this work for anyone interested in philosophy, philosophy of art, and textual criticism.

1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Understand the Intentional Fallacy notion of textual interpretation, December 22, 2008

By 

Michael A Neulander "Political Philosophy" (VA) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)    (TOP 1000 REVIEWER)    (REAL NAME)   

I read this book for a graduate seminar on the philosophy of art. W. K. Wimsatt and Monroe C. Beardsley's, "Verbal Icon," takes a "shot across the bow" of the neo-Romantic artworld's belief that an artwork reflects what the artist means or intends it to mean. Wimsatt and Beardsley's argument is that artistic intention is irrelevant when it comes to the interpretation of an artist's work. At the time, this was a groundbreaking theory that seemed to give critical support to the new Abstract Expressionist works created by such pioneer artists as Jackson Pollock. However, most of Wimsatt and Beardsley's "intentional fallacy" argument takes aim at the written word of poetry and literature. He argues, "That literary works are self-sufficient entities, whose properties are decisive in checking interpretations and judgments. This is sometimes called the Principle of Autonomy, and it is of course the subject of much dispute." It is in the artform of literature, that their theory has created the biggest stir and much "push back" to their notion, by accusing them of metaphorically "murdering the author" by arguing that once a work is written, an artist's intentions no longer have any bearing on the work.

Wimsatt and Beardsley's intentional fallacy notion created quite a stir within the artworld when he opened his argument with the statement, "That the design or intention of the author is neither available nor desirable as a standard for judging the success of a work of literary art, and it seems to us that this is a principle which goes deep into some differences in the history of critical attitudes." The "deep differences" of critical attitudes that Wimsatt and Beardsley speak about points directly to the artform of literature, which since the nineteenth century, was dominated by the neo-Romantic adherents of the "expression" theory. It is important to understand what Wimsatt and Beardsley are essentially arguing against in their intentional fallacy theory, which is what is at the very core of the expression theory. A basic tenant of the expression theory is the idea when engaging an artwork, that it is important one needs to recognize the power of the artwork's ability in being able to focus on the mind of both the creator and the audience. Thus, expression theorists expect artworks will produce certain human emotions in the audience. The expression theory correctly recognizes that art, especially literature, possesses a certain power in being able to articulate the communicative and educative power of the mind and emotions of the artist to the audience.

Wimsatt and Beardsley supported their argument with several axioms. Their first one was that, "A poem does not come into existence by accident." However, although he agrees that the cause of the poem is through the mind of an author, he does not believe that the author's design or intention should be used as a standard to judge the poem's ultimate worth as successful literature. Therefore, unlike the expression theory, only the artwork matters. Thus, for Wimsatt and Beardsley, the artist, (in this case the author), has no connection to the work once it is published since the reader will interpret the text free of trying to deduce artistic intent or meaning.

This idea of textual meaning and authorial meaning not necessarily being the same thing, paves the way for another axiom Wimsatt and Beardsley employ to defend their intentional fallacy theory which is, "Judging a poem is like judging a pudding or a machine. One demands that it work." In addition, he argues that once the author publishes a poem it really does not belong to her or to the critics, it is in the public domain. The poem belongs to a realm of language that is public in nature and is subject to public scrutiny as to its success or failure as a form of art or communication. Therefore, Wimsatt and Beardsley argue that a poem "works" because within the words it communicates its meaning and is understood by the reader.

I recommend this work for anyone interested in philosophy, philosophy of art, and textual criticism.

5.0 out of 5 stars Understand the Intentional Fallacy notion of textual interpretation, December 22, 2008

By 

Michael A Neulander "Political Philosophy" (VA) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)    (TOP 1000 REVIEWER)    (REAL NAME)   

I read this book for a graduate seminar on the philosophy of art. W. K. Wimsatt and Monroe C. Beardsley's, "Verbal Icon," takes a "shot across the bow" of the neo-Romantic artworld's belief that an artwork reflects what the artist means or intends it to mean. Wimsatt and Beardsley's argument is that artistic intention is irrelevant when it comes to the interpretation of an artist's work. At the time, this was a groundbreaking theory that seemed to give critical support to the new Abstract Expressionist works created by such pioneer artists as Jackson Pollock. However, most of Wimsatt and Beardsley's "intentional fallacy" argument takes aim at the written word of poetry and literature. He argues, "That literary works are self-sufficient entities, whose properties are decisive in checking interpretations and judgments. This is sometimes called the Principle of Autonomy, and it is of course the subject of much dispute." It is in the artform of literature, that their theory has created the biggest stir and much "push back" to their notion, by accusing them of metaphorically "murdering the author" by arguing that once a work is written, an artist's intentions no longer have any bearing on the work.

Wimsatt and Beardsley's intentional fallacy notion created quite a stir within the artworld when he opened his argument with the statement, "That the design or intention of the author is neither available nor desirable as a standard for judging the success of a work of literary art, and it seems to us that this is a principle which goes deep into some differences in the history of critical attitudes." The "deep differences" of critical attitudes that Wimsatt and Beardsley speak about points directly to the artform of literature, which since the nineteenth century, was dominated by the neo-Romantic adherents of the "expression" theory. It is important to understand what Wimsatt and Beardsley are essentially arguing against in their intentional fallacy theory, which is what is at the very core of the expression theory. A basic tenant of the expression theory is the idea when engaging an artwork, that it is important one needs to recognize the power of the artwork's ability in being able to focus on the mind of both the creator and the audience. Thus, expression theorists expect artworks will produce certain human emotions in the audience. The expression theory correctly recognizes that art, especially literature, possesses a certain power in being able to articulate the communicative and educative power of the mind and emotions of the artist to the audience.

Wimsatt and Beardsley supported their argument with several axioms. Their first one was that, "A poem does not come into existence by accident." However, although he agrees that the cause of the poem is through the mind of an author, he does not believe that the author's design or intention should be used as a standard to judge the poem's ultimate worth as successful literature. Therefore, unlike the expression theory, only the artwork matters. Thus, for Wimsatt and Beardsley, the artist, (in this case the author), has no connection to the work once it is published since the reader will interpret the text free of trying to deduce artistic intent or meaning.

This idea of textual meaning and authorial meaning not necessarily being the same thing, paves the way for another axiom Wimsatt and Beardsley employ to defend their intentional fallacy theory which is, "Judging a poem is like judging a pudding or a machine. One demands that it work." In addition, he argues that once the author publishes a poem it really does not belong to her or to the critics, it is in the public domain. The poem belongs to a realm of language that is public in nature and is subject to public scrutiny as to its success or failure as a form of art or communication. Therefore, Wimsatt and Beardsley argue that a poem "works" because within the words it communicates its meaning and is understood by the reader.

I recommend this work for anyone interested in philosophy, philosophy of art, and textual criticism.