British Journal of Aesthetics 46 (1):70-81 (2006)
|Abstract||This paper is a continuation of a debate between Noël Carroll, who defends intentionalism, and Kent Wilson and myself, who argue that the intentions of artists are not relevant to the interpretation of works of art.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Jerrold Levinson (2007). Review: Artful Intentions: Paisley Livingston, Art and Intention: A Philosophical Study. [REVIEW] Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 65 (3):299 - 305.
Bruno Verbeek (ed.) (2007). Reasons and Intentions. Ashgate Pub. Ltd..
Alfred R. Mele (2008). Proximal Intentions, Intention-Reports, and Vetoing. Philosophical Psychology 21 (1):1 – 14.
K. E. Gover (2012). What is Humpty-Dumptyism in Contemporary Visual Art? A Reply to Maes. British Journal of Aesthetics 52 (2):169-181.
Raimo Tuomela (2000). Collective and Joint Intention. Mind and Society 1 (2):39-69.
Paisley Livingston (2005). Art and Intention: A Philosophical Study. Oxford University Press.
Stephen Davies (2006). Authors' Intentions, Literary Interpretation, and Literary Value. British Journal of Aesthetics 46 (3):223-247.
Jukka Mikkonen (2009). Intentions and Interpretations: Philosophical Fiction as Conversation. Contemporary Aesthetics 7.
James A. E. Macpherson (2010). Legislative Intentionalism and Proxy Agency. Law and Philosophy 29 (1):1-29.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads43 ( #26,086 of 548,972 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #15,091 of 548,972 )
How can I increase my downloads?