I said a beautiful sunset is not art. A painting of a beautiful sunset is
presumably art. The artist doesn't have to intend a specific experience on
the part of the viewer. It is enough if they create an artifact intending
that the viewer will respond with an aesthetic experience.
I should probably find a different word to replace "communication" which
does imply some kind of identity between the artists intent and the viewer's
experience. My model really only requires that the artist produce an
artifact with the intent or design such that the viewer will respond to the
object with an aesthetic experience.
Mike Mallory
----- Original Message -----
From: "William Conger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 1:06 PM
Subject: Re: Beauty? I think not!
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
