| I argue that Michael Krausz's philosophy of interpretation has important applications to the aesthetics of architecture. I claim that the taxonomy formed by the association of the interpretive ideals of singularism and multiplism with various ontological theories is useful for organizing and analyzing architectural interpretations. Specifically, I concentrate on how we ought to reconcile the number of competing interpretations of a given work of architecture we are willing to accept and what we should look for in this reconciliation. I conclude that this framework: (1) is useful for assisting interpreters that may be unable or unwilling to overcome differences in their ontological theories and reach agreement about the number of admissible interpretations they are willing to hold; and, (2) fosters an interpretive tolerance yet avoids endorsing interpretive positions that have confused architectural interpretive practice in recent decades. |
