If it's all about function or form (are they the same thing?) then why do you identify (see list below) certain artworks as art based on content, such as beautiful sunsets. Boy, I think you fell into that one up to your ears since there are dozens, hundreds of extrardinary artworks, all with broad artworld approbation, that are "beautiful sunsets". Turner, Monet, any number of Luminist works, Gauguin, Millet, etc., etc. and those are just from the 19C West.
Much contemporary art is not at all about the artists' intentions but the viewers'. Ever since cubism, artists have invited the viewers to "complete" the work and thus invent its experience and identity as art. The a.e. intention is the viewer's. The viewer creates the art. The artist proposes possibles or tests the authority of art in any instgance. WC --- Mike Mallory <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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. > >>
