This paper examines some of the philosophical positions explaining the interpretation of artwork as related to its ontology and the concept of creativity. A theory of interpretation necessarily involves a certain ontological position answering questions such as: What is the object of interpretation?; What is a work of art? The same close relation one can find between a theory of interpretation and the creativity, i.e. the questions such as In what sense (if at all) is a work of art created?; (...) What is created by an artist and what by the observer/reader/listener of a work of art?. Our interpretation and its results depend on answers to these questions. In conclusion the author gives an outline of his own position on the interpretation of a work of art in the context of the creativity and the ontology of the former. (shrink)

Cognitive overlap between art and science can be found in the processes of learning through experience. What necessarily needs to be present in these processes are not good reasons in favor of what is known or learnt, but the following features: The first feature art and science have in common is the negativity of learning processes: What a cognizer C learns through experience is that her theories, expectations, attitudes, trials, etc. are wrong and should be abandoned in order to advance. (...) This leads us to the second common feature of art and science: if C is to err, and thus to learn through experience, she must create something in advance. It is further argued that C learns through experience due to causal relations between the environment and her sensations and beliefs. This cannot be accomplished, however, if C is not aware of the notion of objective truth. Empirical knowledge is social and public, yet its truth is not reducible to social agreement. More could be learnt about the learning through experience in art and science, if anyone showed that some of the features or relations proposed in this paper are not necessary for learning. (shrink)