Just to be clear, I do not contend we have to know what kind of a.e. the
artist intended before calling the artifact "art", we only have to determine
that the artist intended to communicate some kind of a.e. Under my analysis
the actual content of any a.e. is irrelevant to whether something is or is
not art. It is all about the function or form.
I do not consider the epistemological struggle to determine subjective
intent a significant issue. The issue only arises in borderline cases. No
matter how you approach a division of objects into a taxonomy, there will be
borderline cases that arise.
The real question should be whether the definitional approach is useful in
describing those objects generally taken for art and excluding those objects
we agree should be rejected as art. When you look at controversial cases, I
think my approach gets them all right.
Elephant paintings - not art
Beautiful sunset - not art
Needlepoint and similar "crafts" - art
bad art - art
ugly art - art
spiral jetty - art
DuChamp's "Fountain" - art
Mike Mallory
----- Original Message -----
From: "William Conger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 7:22 AM
Subject: Re: Beauty? I think not!
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
