The trouble with Mike's view of intentionality is that it can't be disproven, I mean there's no case in which someone cannot falsely claim or assign intentionality as truth.
The teacher says to the art student. What were you intending to do convey? The student says, Oh, I intended this to convey the beauty of peace. Teacher: Well, it doesn't convey that but it does convey that war is beautiful. Student. Yeah, that's what I really meant. I've said it before and I'll say it again: The artist's intention may be necessary to his or her motivation to make an artwork, but it is never sufficient to any artwork. In art making or in art response, you can claim to express or convey anything at all but you can never guarantee that you succeed. Pollock didn't know what his intention was. That's why he made paintings. WC --- Mike Mallory <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Responses embedded: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Beauty? I think not! > > > Mike said>> Art is the intentional communication of > an aesthetic experience. > >> > > Do you mean that an a.e. must occur? In other > words, the mere intention to > > cause one in a contemplator is not enough -- it > has to "work"? > > Mike: I do not require an actual a.e., only a > potential a.e. Maybe people > will have an aesthetic experience, maybe not. When > a piece is intended to > generate an aesthetic experience, but for all known > experiencers it does > not, we might call that a failed piece of art. > > > > > And: Suppose someone creates a painting, but > hasn't shown it to anyone > > yet. > > Unless we count the artist getting an a.e. alone > in his studio each time > > he > > looks at it, would that mean it's not art yet? > > Mike: A painting destroyed before the unveiling > would still be art if > intended to communicate an a.e. > > > > If we count the artist, suppose when he finishes > the work, to his dismay > > it > > leaves him cold. So he puts it aside. A week > later, someone walks into the > > studio and derives an a.e. from looking at the > painting. Does it at that > > point > > become art? > > Mike: To me, it is the it is the intent, not the > response, which controls. > If Pollack's "Autumn Rhythms" was an accidental > piece, where he simply > framed > the drop cloth under his workspace I would not call > it art. OTOH, if > someone labors over a piece for years and intends it > to communicate an a.e., > but it leaves everyone, including the artist, cold, > I consider it art. Bad > art maybe, but art. > > > If we count the artist, my guess would be that the > vast majority of works > > created by a would-be artist give the creator an > a.e. when he looks at it, > > so > > almost everything created with the intention of > communicating an a.e. > > would, by > > your definition, be "art". Okay by you? > > > > Mike: My approach is very inclusive. I believe our > lives are filled with > objects and events that are appropriately considered > art. I consider it > art, when a little boy sneaks up behind a little > girl and shouts, "Boo" in > an attempt to frighten her. Is such a thing all > that different than "Chucky > II"? > > > (To WC who asked: "Alright, please explain > "intentional" "communication" > and "patterns of human behavior and understanding" > All of this suggests some measurable condition that > stands independent of art.") > > "Intentional" (in this case) Production of an > artifact under a plan or > design which the artist believes will result in an > object which when > experienced by others will produce an a.e. (Can be > specific or > non-specific, singular or complex) > > "Communicate" (in this case) Production of an > artifact in a manner such > that those experiencing the artifact will respond > with an desired a.e. (an > artist can be a good or a poor communicator) > > "patterns of human behavior and understanding" Any > reasonable sociological > model which explains the relationships and > interactions of a society. > > "Intentional" is measurable, but only in the soft > sense of asking the artist > what she intended. "Communicate" requires a > comparison between the intent > of the artist and the response of the experiencer > which is also soft, but is > IMO also obvious in the majority of cases. But, we > do not need to beg the > question and determine whether something is "art" > before we make the > assessment. > > A sociological description of the way artifacts > function in society is not > so much measured as it is correlated to facts. > > > Mike Mallory
