10 iunie 2014

Atelier de dezbateri: „The Conflict of Interpretations: Literature and its Reading”,


(1) Progress in humanities and, similarly, in the institution of literature, is part of the growing development – by accumulation in science. Most of the times, this phenomenon has been identified as consequence of “anomalies” depleted by changes of paradigm. Therefore, as challenging forces could do, “anomalies’ may generate “the changing of the rules of the game”, the framing of new perspectives while probing and questioning the “norm” and normativity itself;

(2) In these late years, literature with the different media of its representation (and of transmission), leading to further explorations of the very notion of literature, has also mediated (sometimes from antagonic, some other times from agonic position) between or among various ways of reading and interpretation, bringing forth change within the “art of reading”;

(3) The “art of reading” is posited against the backdrop of the “conflict of interpretations” which is theoretically challenged by academia in their communities and elsewhere. As “Literature” itself has become its own problem (not only with Authorship turning upon itself in the contemporary literature for that matter), to speak of solutions with the wealth of interpretations means only to assess / to estimate (again) the value of some (or many) of them: for no interpretation can stay outside the changes in literature and changes of sensibility in readers, at the outset of the new millennium. Moreover, as they say, there is no shift or change (of perspective) outside a point of start and there is no change, which any shift announces without the modernization of the mind;

(4) As there are no “neutral facts” in literature, the relationship between “the science of literature”(represented by literary history, literary theory and criticism) and the “institution of literature” represented – among other things – by the bond between the World –the Author – the Text/ Work – the Reader, the two of them cannot aspire to the tempering of the “conflict of interpretations” but by accepting the re-thinking of its “frontiers” and by accepting supplementation.