Simon Fokt

Constructive Thoughts on Pierre Menard

Contextualism underlies a large part of the modern discussion of art interpretation. it is often accepted by both interpretational monists, who claim that there is always one correct interpretation of any given artwork, and pluralists, who argue that there can be many justified interpretations. it is also often accepted by constructivists, who claim that the interpretative effort of the audience is a part of the creative process that has influence, not only on the interpretation, but also on the artwork itself—i.e., artworks are partially constructed by the audience. Notably, a large number of contextualists actively resist constructivism and endorse one of the other options.1 in this paper i will not try to take a stance in the discussion between monists, pluralists, and constructivists, but rather focus on pointing out an issue present within the contextualists’ argumentation, and specifically the often used Pierre Menard example. i argue that the current use of this example is underspecified and can make constructivism an inevitable conclusion for all contextualists, even those who argue most fiercely against it. at the very least, this article shows that the popular example should be thoroughly rethought if it is to be useful for contextualists.