Maes, H.R.V. (2008) Challenging Partial Intentionalism. Journal of Visual Art Practice, 7 (1). pp. 85-94. ISSN 1470-2029 .
Paisley Livingston claims that an artist’s intentions are successfully realized and hence determinate of the meaning of a work if and only if they are compatible and “mesh” with the linguistic and conventional meanings of the text or artefact taken in its target or intended context. I argue that this specific standard of success is not without its difficulties. First, I show how an artist’s intention can sometimes be constitutive of a work’s meaning even if there is no significant meshing between the artist’s intention and his work. Second, I argue against the claim that the artist’s intentions need to be compatible with the linguistic and conventional meanings of a text. Third, I discuss a case that creates a particular puzzle for Livingston since the intentions of the artist concerned are clearly not successfully realized, though they are compatible and mesh with all the relevant data. I conclude my paper by suggesting a solution to this puzzle.
|Uncontrolled keywords:||intention; interpretation; art; intentionalism|
|Subjects:||B Philosophy. Psychology. Religion > BH Aesthetics
N Fine Arts > NX Arts in general
|Divisions:||Faculties > Humanities > School of Arts|
|Depositing User:||Hans Maes|
|Date Deposited:||09 Oct 2012 13:00|
|Last Modified:||04 Feb 2013 10:46|
|Resource URI:||http://kar.kent.ac.uk/id/eprint/31436 (The current URI for this page, for reference purposes)|
- Depositors only (login required):