shusterman's account of interpretation is constructed in opposition to both analytic aesthetics and deconstruction, which are often said to constitute the two opposite poles of contemporary interpretive theory. as he claims, both of them share "a picture of understanding as the recapturing or reproducing of a particular ... ["separate and autonomous"] meaning-object", yet they differ as to whether such act is possible. deconstructionists, assuming their protean vision of language as "systematic play of differences", claim it is not, and hence deem every reading a "misreading", while analytic aestheticians think otherwise, usually construing the objective work-meaning as "metaphysically fixed in the artwork" and identifying it with the intention of the artist or "semantic features of the work itself".