Interpretation is an art that draws on science, not a science

Evidence

Sooner or later the interpreter must face the question of whether he is dealing with a science or an art. Interpretation is one or the other; it cannot be both. If it is an art, it can draw upon all science. But if it is a science, it can have no patience with “the sweet insouciance of lettered ease.” Dr. John Merriam remarked of Albert Michelson, the physicist, that “it was his lot to be a scientist, otherwise he would have been a great artist.” The very fact that Michelson chose to be the one rather than the other is sufficient to indicate that in practice they are not compatible. — Freeman Tilden, Interpreting Our Heritage, 234

Categorization

• DEFINE: Central definitional move: interpretation framed as art (which may use all science) rather than science.
• XREF: connects to: Unexpected people can reveal deep artistic perception given the right trigger — Freeman Tilden, Interpreting Our Heritage, 243; Scientific correctness applies to investigations, not to the art they study. — Holm Gero Hümmler, Ulrike Schiesser, Fact and Prejudice: How to Communicate…, 781; Interpretation reveals meanings rather than simply communicating facts — Freeman Tilden, Interpreting Our Heritage, 69 (+3 more)

Broader Connections

• Scientific correctness applies to investigations, not to the art they study. #corroborates (0.85) — Holm Gero Hümmler, Ulrike Schiesser, Fact and Prejudice, 781
• Interpretation reveals meanings rather than simply communicating facts #expands (0.80) — Freeman Tilden, Interpreting Our Heritage, 69
• Interpretation aims at personal meaning, not just factual information. #corroborates (0.80) — Freeman Tilden, Interpreting Our Heritage, 11
• Interpretation is a tool for use built on coherence without theoretical adequacy #corroborates (0.75) — Donna Landry and Gerald MacLean, The Spivak Reader, 365