Michael Krausz

I. Ideals and Aims of Interpretation. Michael Krausz’s interests in the theory of interpretation address the following cluster of questions.[8] For such cultural phenomena as works of art, music, literature, and the self, can a single admissible interpretation exist? Or, for such phenomena, can a multiplicity of admissible interpretations exist?[9] For such phenomena, can opposing interpretations be jointly defended?[10] Does interpretive activity affect the nature and number of that which is interpreted?[11][12] Does interpretation aim for the elucidation of its objects, the edification of its interpreters, or both?[13] How does the question of singularity or multiplicity of admissible interpretations bear on the singularity or multiplicity of life paths and projects?[14]

Singularism asserts that objects of interpretation always answer to one and only one ideal interpretation. In contrast, multiplism asserts that objects of interpretation may answer to more than one opposed interpretation. Both singularism and multiplism require that competing interpretations address one and the same object of interpretation. Where different interpretations address different objects of interpretation, an innocuous pluralism occurs.[15] Where objects of interpretation cannot be delineated as to number, neither singularism nor multiplism can apply.[16]

Krausz probes the relation between these ideals of interpretation and their ontologies.[17] Singularism and multiplism are each compatible with either realism or constructivism. Singularism does not uniquely entail realism (and vice versa) and multiplism does not uniquely entail constructivism (and vice versa). Orthodox combinations include singularist-realism and multiplist-constructivism. Heterodox combinations include singularist-constructivism and multiplist-realism.[18]

Krausz affirms that the contest between singularism and multiplism is logically detachable from the contest between realism and constructivism.[19] He further shows that the contest between singularism and multiplism is detachable from a range of other ontologies that fall under the reconciliatory heading of “constructive realism.”[20] None of the ontologies in Krausz’s inventory of constructive realisms uniquely entails either singularism or multiplism (and vice versa). Yet Krausz denies that his “detachability thesis” demonstrates that ontology as such is unnecessary for the theory of interpretation. For the question of the countability of objects of interpretation as well as interpretations themselves is ontological.[21] Krausz extends the notion of ideals of interpretation to ideals of life paths or projects, such as self-realization.[22] That is, directional singularism is the view that for a given person there is one admissible life path, and directional multiplism is the view that for a given person there may be more than one admissible life path. He develops the idea of directional multiplism from a non-essentialist or non-foundational view of human nature.[23]

II. Relativism. In addition, Krausz’s work on relativism canvasses the range and significance of relativistic doctrines and rehearses their virtues and vices. He considers relativism as the claim that truth, goodness, or beauty (among other values) is relative to some reference frame, and no absolute standards to adjudicate between reference frames exist. He defines and differentiates various strands of absolutism: realism, universalism and foundationalism.[24] Krausz argues that when these strands of absolutism are unwoven, and when relativism is understood as the negation of these strands, classical self-refutation arguments against relativism do not apply.[25][26] In turn, Krausz considers whether the idea of “undifferentiated unity” survives the relativist challenge. He suggests that the assertion of undifferentiated unity, instanced for example in some Asian soteriologies, is compatible with relativism as here he defines it.[27]

Michael Krausz is the founding Artistic Director and Conductor of the Great Hall Chamber Orchestra at Bryn Mawr.[28] The GHCO is composed of 42 young professional and conservatory musicians, and has collaborated with principal players of the New York Philharmonic and Philadelphia Orchestra as soloists. Krausz studied violin with Cleveland Orchestra concertmaster Josef Gingold. He received his early conducting coaching from his father, Laszlo Krausz, noted violist with l'Orchestre de la Suisse Romande and the Cleveland Orchestra, and conductor of the Akron Symphony Orchestra. Frederik Prausnitz of the Peabody Conservatory, and Luis Biava, Resident Conductor Laureate of the Philadelphia Orchestra also coached Michael Krausz. Krausz has been guest conductor of professional orchestras in Bulgaria, including the Pleven, Vratsa and Plovdiv Philharmonic Orchestras.

End of Texts 35"x26"

Michael Krausz has had thirty-three solo and duo shows in galleries in the U.S., U.K., and India, and he has participated in many group exhibitions. He was elected Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts (F.R.S.A.) in 1973. Krausz studied at the Philadelphia College of Art and Haystack Mountain School of Crafts. He was Resident Fellow at the Ossabaw Foundation. Krausz's artworks have been reproduced in numerous publications including the British journal, Leonardo. He is a member of Artist's Exchange, DE, and Delaware by Hand, which, in 2009, awarded him the status of “Master.”[29]

Krausz's paintings depict various spatial planes at once, embodying scripted messages of no literal significance. They are concerned with the emergence and dissolution of ciphers in infinite spaces. The works embody a kind of automatic writing arising from conductorial musical gestures in meditative spaces. The paintings are done with dry pigment on museum board and other mixed media.