One Comment

  1. Andy Owen says:

    15 May 2014 at 11.02 am

    Thank you for the post. I can agree with Morris, especially after visiting the Accademia di Belle Arti Firenze, where Michelangelo’s David stands. I remember turning the corner and seeing this gigantic marble statue at the far end of the hall. To get there, visitors walk past rows of uncompleted sculptures: anguished, half-finished figures struggling and emerging from their stone prisons. But the figure of David beckons and seems to grow larger when approached. Visitors gaze up in silent amazement at his beauty and immensity. I would recommend a visit to Florence just to experience this.
    This vision of beauty has a connection with your comment: ‘interpreters tend to invoke Codes of Conduct most often when it benefits them’ because (laying aside the deontological issue that codes of conduct/ethics/practice should be viewed as inalienable, meaning any rights conferred have an intrinsic burden of mutuality) interpreting, despite the laudable aim of convergence, is a conflict between the message, the intent and the interlocutors, from which the interpreter struggles to emerge, like a half-finished sculpture, imposing a personal stamp on the interaction. Whether the Codes of Conduct are invoked ‘when it benefits them’ is probably rarely considered while this conflict is under way, but it begs the age-old question; what gives way when the interpreter’s personal values are at direct odds with the interpreter’s Code of Conduct?


Comments are closed.