British Journal of Aesthetics 50 (2):121-138 (2010)
|Abstract||The role of the artist's intention in the interpretation of art has been the topic of a lively and ongoing discussion in analytic aesthetics. First, I sketch the current state of this debate, focusing especially on two competing views: actual and hypothetical intentionalism. Secondly, I discuss the search for a suitable test case, that is, a work of art that is interpreted differently by actual and hypothetical intentionalists, with only one of these interpretations being plausible. Many examples from many different art forms have been considered in this respect, but none of these test cases has proved convincing. Thirdly, I introduce two new test cases taken from contemporary visual art. I explain why these examples are better suited as test cases and how they lend support to the actual intentionalist position|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Philip Alperson (ed.) (1992). The Philosophy of the Visual Arts. Oxford University Press.
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.
Tiffany Sutton (2000). The Classification of Visual Art: A Philosophical Myth and its History. Cambridge University Press.
Jukka Mikkonen (2009). Intentions and Interpretations: Philosophical Fiction as Conversation. Contemporary Aesthetics 7.
Ian Heywood & Barry Sandywell (eds.) (1999). Interpreting Visual Culture: Explorations in the Hermeneutics of the Visual. Routledge.
K. E. Gover (2012). What is Humpty-Dumptyism in Contemporary Visual Art? A Reply to Maes. British Journal of Aesthetics 52 (2):169-181.
Added to index2010-02-04
Total downloads115 ( #4,612 of 549,088 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,317 of 549,088 )
How can I increase my downloads?