Presenters: Mélissa Thériault (Université du Québec á Trois Rivières), Matthew Strohl (University of Montana), and Celia Coll (University of Hertfordshire)

Chair: Eileen John (University of Warwick)

Date: Wednesday, 21^st of June 3PM BST.

Contact: Celia Coll (c.coll@herts.ac.uk) for the zoom link to the event.

Talks and Abstracts:

‘There is no such thing as bad literature’

Mélissa Thériault (Université du Québec á Trois Rivières)

�������ٰ�������:��There are failed books, badly written, of course. Nevertheless, when we talk about bad literature, we generally designate categories of writing, without regard to the possible qualities of the works taken in isolation. We reject cheap sentimental novels, chick lit, and fan fiction, for example; and most of the time, rejecting these productions aims to establish our own cultural legitimacy. Also, to call certain literature “bad” sometimes leads one to despise a whole community (often without realising it): for example, saying that these folks are without history and without literature, or that some communities do not really have literature because it is not written or commercially published.

In this presentation, I will argue that there is no such thing as bad literature, and that no matter where we stand on the subject, we can see that delegitimized literary productions (sometimes referred to as ‘paraliteratures’) reveal in fact what we expect from a literary text. This step gives us precious indications on the values carried by both the act of writing and reception. For these reasons, these delegitimized writing practices are worth observing in order to understand our implicit motives for devaluation but also for recognition.

Bad literature is what others like, and what you want to be different from. The question is: why does it matter so much?

‘Humility and “Bad” Art’

Matthew Strohl (University of Montana)

Abstract: Most art appreciators are comfortable with the idea that some art encounters call for humility. If I visit a Japanese ceramics exhibit and I possess little prior familiarity with the category or its context, then I should be very hesitant to draw strong evaluative conclusions from my untutored responses. I argue that many encounters with art that we are inclined to write off as plainly or obviously bad also call for humility. I enumerate several reasons. First, coarsely negative evaluative claims of this sort typically rest on similarly coarse normative principles (e.g., “stilted writing is bad”), and we generally shouldn’t be confident that such principles hold in a given case until we work out the details. Second, we are often not aware which categories or what context might be relevant to evaluating the work. Third, coarsely negative evaluative claims preemptively cut off discourse that might reveal forms of interest we hadn’t imagined. Fourth, without a good faith attempt to engage with the details of the work in question and a broad range of potential appreciative perspectives, coarsely negative evaluative claims are more likely to express implicit biases or prejudices. Finally, the impulse to make coarsely negative evaluative claims is often reflective of a form of aesthetic vice that I call “the narcissism of narrowness.” Cultivating a sense of generosity and openness towards art that is readily dismissible as bad stands to make us more valuable participants in our aesthetic communities and encourages a more flexible and creative relationship with art. In Susan Sontag’s words, it is “good for the digestion.”

‘Interpreting Works of Literature: The Good and the Bad’

Celia Coll (University of Hertfordshire)

Abstract: In contemporary philosophy of literature, appeals to actual authorial intention in support of an interpretation of what is fictionally true (i.e., the fictional content) in a work of literature are, with a few exceptions, broadly speaking unpopular. Arguably, one such exception is the apparent attempt to re-construct actual artistic intention when explaining failings or perceived failings in a work of art, and the badness (or good-badness) which potentially ensues from these failings, that we find in the likes of Strohl (2022). I propose that the fact that such reconstructions are deemed intuitively acceptable to explain the badness in certain works of art is germane to the question of whether appeals to actual authorial intention are ever legitimate in the interpretation of fictional content in the following respect. One of the ways in which a work of literature can fail is by failing to standardly express intended fictional content, in such a way that the author’s intentions are still publicly intelligible and thus amenable to the reconstruction that would explain an artistic failing in that work.

If appeal to authorial intention in cases where such intentions are not met is legitimate, with respect to the standard expression of fictional content, what does that tell us about the role of actual authorial intention in cases where such intentions are met? I argue that the legitimacy of the appeal to authorial intention in the bad cases are indicative of the legitimacy of the appeal to authorial intention in the good cases. I make my case through the application of Gricean-inspired accounts of malapropisms to Amanda McKittrick Ros’s infamous Helen Huddleson and to Jane Austen’s Persuasion. The resulting proposal echoes one of the theses defended in Stock (2017): if we find the Gricean approach to malapropisms and meaning more generally plausible in cases of ordinary language, then a similarly intentionalist account of meaning must ensue for the interpretation of fictional content in works of literature, both good and bad.

The British Society for Aesthetics conference, Philosophy of Performance: Beyond the Continental/Analytic Divide, took place on Friday 24 May 2019 at the University of Kent in Canterbury. It was generously supported by the ������Ƶ, with additional support from the Aesthetics Research Centre at the University of Kent and the Centre for Performance Philosophy at the University of Surrey.  The central aim was to bring together scholars working within analytic philosophy of theatre with scholars working on the more continental-influenced field of Performance Philosophy. We were pleased to find that the conference also drew together a previously somewhat hidden constituency of performance scholars who in different ways were already working across analytic and continental traditions as ordinarily conceived.

The conference was opened by a keynote discussion between Dr Laura Cull Ó Maoilearca (Surrey), founding convenor of the Performance Philosophy organisation, and Dr Tom Stern (UCL) author of Philosophy and Theatre: An Introduction. This discussion outlined how both viewed their work as connecting with the continental/analytic divide, how they viewed the relationship between performance and philosophy, and the question of whether performance can be understood as doing philosophy. After lunch, a panel discussion between Dr Dieter Declercq (Kent) and Athanassia Williamson (NYU) looked at connections between satire and cynicism, and was followed by another panel dialogue between Dr Anna Petronella Foultier (Stockholm) and Dr Anthony Gritten (Royal Academy of Music). This looked at examples of dance and music to tease out connections between creativity and decision-making. The closing keynote was given by Dr Aili Bresnahan (Dayton), which made the case for “multi-methodological competency” (MMC) in philosophy of theatre, arguing that it is both desirable for its own sake, and crucial in order for philosophy of theatre to grow and thrive.

Registration for the Sexuality Summer School is open to all PhD and Masters students and will go live on 14 February 2014 at estore.manchester.ac.uk. The number of students is limited to 35 so book early to avoid disappointment. Price: £70 (early bird, until 14 March) / £80 (regular). Includes some food / refreshments and tickets to public events at Contact and the Cornerhouse.

The Sexuality Summer School is a five-day event for postgraduates, organized by the Centre for the Study of Sexuality and Culture (CSSC) at the University of Manchester since 2008. The Sexuality Summer School brings together postgraduates, researchers and international scholars, and also artists and filmmakers, to facilitate dialogue and discussions that speak to contemporary debates in queer and feminist sexuality studies, with a particular emphasis on the interdisciplinary study of culture. In 2014, our focus will be on cultural theories and histories of anatomy.

The Sexuality Summer School includes public events (see below for details) with Jaspir Puar (Rutgers), Jim Hubbard (director, United in Anger), Richard Dyer (Kings), Valerie Traub (Michigan), Peggy Shaw and Lois Weaver (Split Britches), Mary Bryson (British Columbia) and Chase Joynt (Chicago). The Summer School will also include workshops with Claudia Castañeda (Emerson), with Erika Alm and Kajsa Widegren (Gender Studies, Gothenburg) and members of CSSC at the University of Manchester, including: Jackie Stacey, Monica Pearl, David Alderson and Laura Doan.

The Sexuality Summer School is sponsored this year by the University of Manchester Faculty of Humanities; Cornerhouse; Contact; Screen; Science, Stroke, Art 2014; and SEXGEN.

For more information about the Sexuality Summer School, including details of previous events, go to sexualitysummerschool.wordpress.com, email us and get on the mailing list at sexualitysummerschool@gmail.com, find Sexuality Summer School on Facebook or tweet us @SSS_Manchester.

SSS 2014 Public Events (open to everyone):

Monday 26 May – 12-2 – lunchtime public lecture: Professor Jasbir
Puar (Rutgers)
Monday 26 May – 6-8 – film screening at Cornerhouse: United in Anger: A History of ACT UP (2012) followed by Q&A with director Jim Hubbard, Professor Richard Dyer (Kings) and Dr. Monica Pearl (Manchester). Co-sponsored by Screen

Tuesday 27 May – 4-6 – public lecture: Professor Valerie Traub (Michigan and Simon Visiting Professorship, Manchester). Co-sponsored by SEXGEN northern network

Tuesday 27 May – 7.30-9.30 – workshop at Contact: Peggy Shaw and Lois Weaver in Green Screening: A Conversational Workshop (to book: http://contactmcr.com/whats-on/12873-split-britches-ruff/)

Wednesday 28 May – 8-10 – evening performance at Contact: Peggy Shaw in her new show: RUFF followed by ‘Ask the Doctor: Q&A’ (sponsored by Science, Stroke, Art 2014 as part of Action on Stroke Month) (to book: http://contactmcr.com/whats-on/12873-split-britches-ruff/)

Thursday 29 May – 5-7 – public lecture: Professor Mary Bryson (University of British Columbia) and Chase Joynt (Chicago) on Cancer’s Margins

Programme:

Monday, 17 February 2014
University of Zurich, Room KO2-F-174

18:00 – 18:15 Welcome Address

18:15 – 19:15 Keynote: Hans-Johann Glock (University of Zurich):
Translation, Incommensurability and Indeterminacy

19:15 – 19:45 – Discussion

Tuesday,  18th February 2014
University of Zurich, Room KOL-G-212

10:00 – 10:45 Vasso Kindi (University of Athens):
Incommensurability and Translation

10:55 – 11:40 Simon J. Evnine (University of Miami):
Translation and the Ontology of Language

11:50 – 12:35 Gabriele M. Mras (WU/University of Vienna):
Where There Is No Real Question of Choice: Translation and Correctness

12:35 – 14:00 Lunch break

14:00 – 14:45 Piers Rawling (Florida State University):
Have Our Beliefs Got Lost in Translation?

14:55 – 15:40 Stefan Riegelnik (University of Zurich):
Intermediaries and the Object of Translation

15:40 – 16:00 Coffee break

16:00 – 16:45 Mélika Ouelbani (University of Tunis):
Can One Learn to Translate as One Learns to “Play the Piano”?

16:55 – 17:35 Susanne Huber (University of Zurich):
Translating Pictures: a Wittgensteinian Approach to the Question of Translation

Wednesday, 19 February 2014
University of Zurich, Room KOL-G-212

10:00 – 10:45 Joachim Schulte (University of Zurich):
The Impossible Business of Translating Philosophical Works

10:55 – 11:40 Joachim Adler (University of Zurich):
Conceptual Clarification and its Language

11:50 – 12:35 Nenad Miscevic (CEU/University of Maribor):
Translating Pejoratives

12:35 – 14:00 Lunch break

14:00 – 14:45 Georg Bossong (University of Zurich):
Typology and Creativity in Translation: Expressing Philosophy in Indo-European and Semitic

14:55 – 15:40 Philip Wilson (Inönü University):
Maybe a Completely Different Poem: a View from Literary Translation

15:40 – 16:00 Coffee break

16:00 – 16:45 Piotr Stalmaszyk (University of Lodz):
Proper Names in Translation: Philosophy of Language Meets Linguistics

16:45 – 17:00 Concluding Remarks

Venue:
University of Zurich
Rämistrasse 71
8006 Zurich

�±�������ٱ�:��

General questions concerning the conference should be directed in the first instance to translation2014@philos.uzh.ch.

Conference attendance is free. Register by sending an email to translation2014@philos.uzh.ch

The conference is sponsored by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF), the Institute of Philosophy of the University of Zurich and the Doctoral Programme “Philosophy: Language, Mind and Practice”.