Maes, Hans R.V. (2008) Challenging Partial Intentionalism. Journal of Visual Art Practice, 7 (1). pp. 85-94. ISSN 1470-2029. (doi:10.1386/jvap.7.1.85_1) (KAR id:31436)
PDF
Language: English |
|
Download this file (PDF/384kB) |
Preview |
Request a format suitable for use with assistive technology e.g. a screenreader | |
Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1386/jvap.7.1.85_1 |
Abstract
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.
Item Type: | Article |
---|---|
DOI/Identification number: | 10.1386/jvap.7.1.85_1 |
Uncontrolled keywords: | intention; interpretation; art; intentionalism |
Subjects: |
B Philosophy. Psychology. Religion > BH Aesthetics N Visual Arts > NX Arts in general |
Divisions: | Divisions > Division of Arts and Humanities > School of Arts |
Depositing User: | Hans Maes |
Date Deposited: | 09 Oct 2012 13:00 UTC |
Last Modified: | 16 Nov 2021 10:09 UTC |
Resource URI: | https://kar.kent.ac.uk/id/eprint/31436 (The current URI for this page, for reference purposes) |
- Link to SensusAccess
- Export to:
- RefWorks
- EPrints3 XML
- BibTeX
- CSV
- Depositors only (login required):