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)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1093/aesthj/ayj005
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 51,707
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

The Intentional Fallacy: Defending Myself.Noel Carroll - 1997 - Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 55 (3):305-309.
The Intentional Fallacy: Defending Beardsley.George Dickie & W. Kent Wilson - 1995 - Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 53 (3):233-250.
Confession of a Weak Anti-Intentionalist: Exposing Myself.W. Kent Wilson - 1997 - Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 55 (3):309-311.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total views
117 ( #77,005 of 2,333,199 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
15 ( #39,370 of 2,333,199 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes