I'm not sure what's going on with respect to intentionality. It's true that I don't think of an audience prompting my intentions since I can't say that there's any audience whose own art ideas are shaped strongly enough to suit me. There is, however an abstraction of an artworld or critical audience I think about but even in that case I can't say I regard it as an ally, but I'd be foolish to say it hasn't affected my own tastes and habits.
I do like to pretend that artworks in history "speak to me" even offering a mental handshake, as it were, and that is a form of imagined approbation. Now, even if Velasquez or Picasso could flap down from the clouds, hang their halos by my studio door and politely offer their opinions of my work, would they be kind or harsh? I do indulge such fantasies! I do seek the approbation of art history, by which I mean the varied artistic, moral and aspirational excellences that signify the best. Everything else is secondary. I also know it's all a little crazy to measure one's ambition through delusional imaginings. But I can refer to Delacroix's famous concoction of a Pantheon of Great Artists (in his never completed philosophy of art handbook) where, of course, he also had a place. Intentions are our fantasies for the life of our art. Intentions: Dreams and boundless love, a happy future; respite from failure, sorrow, pain and death. WC --- On Sat, 8/30/08, armando baeza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: armando baeza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: "Meaning" is always in a mind, never in an object. > To: [email protected] > Cc: "armando baeza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Saturday, August 30, 2008, 11:27 PM > Approbation by others is never part of my intent in art. > Validation > of it comes from my inner being, it tells me it's > done. I love > every work when I finish, knowing It may not be forever. I > feel taste > was never meant to be a science. > Some of my work that i don't like any more is liked by > people that I > respect and vise versa. Yet I respect all my work, > because it was made by the being that I was, then, a > probable reason > why some people keep buying my work. > I've always felt like you felt that same way. > mando > On Aug 30, 2008, at 5:29 PM, William Conger wrote: > > > How you you know that what you like about your design > is the > > implication that it will be well received by those > whom you > > respect...and might provoke those you don't? In > other words, are > > our art intentions really our own or are they > collectively fostered > > by others from whom we want approbation? It's > fine by me if > > intentions are not our own. I think artists must have > intentions > > to be motivated to do their work and to guide its > completion but I > > don't think intentions can validate or invalidate > the work as art. > > Thus I think intentions are necessary but not > sufficient. > > > > WC > > > > > > --- On Sat, 8/30/08, armando baeza > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> From: armando baeza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Subject: Re: "Meaning" is always in a > mind, never in an object. > >> To: [email protected] > >> Cc: "armando baeza" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Date: Saturday, August 30, 2008, 7:19 PM > >> When I finally arrive at a design that I'm > excited > >> about, my intent > >> is finished. What others sense, is irrelevant to > me. > >> So where does the truth lie? > >> mando > >> > >> On Aug 30, 2008, at 3:25 PM, William Conger wrote: > >> > >>> Robert Frank's photos and films are known > >> precisely because they > >>> convey a raw, unadorned view of how people > >> unintentionally manifest > >>> their social habits and styles. Which is to > say he > >> achieves what he > >>> set out to do. His disclaimers are honorific. > Besides > >> we can never > >>> assume that what the artist (author) says > about > >> intentionality is > >>> true. See The Intentional Fallacy. > >>> WC > >>> > >>> > >>> --- On Sat, 8/30/08, joseph berg > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> > >>>> From: joseph berg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>> Subject: Re: "Meaning" is always > in a > >> mind, never in an object. > >>>> To: [email protected] > >>>> Date: Saturday, August 30, 2008, 5:01 PM > >>>> - My photographs are not planned or > composed in > >> advance, and > >>>> I do not > >>>> anticipate that the onlooker will share my > >> viewpoint. > >>>> However, I feel that > >>>> if my photograph leaves an image on his > mind, > >> something has > >>>> been > >>>> accomplished. > >>>> Robert Frank > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 10:25 AM, > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> "Meaning" is always in a > mind, never > >> in an > >>>> object. > >>>>> > >>>>> Whenever we look upon (or hear, or > taste, or > >> smell, or > >>>> even palp) an > >>>>> object, > >>>>> the sense data each mind receives is > more or > >> less > >>>> different from the next > >>>>> mind's receipt, and each mind then > >>>> "processes" it differently. > >>>>> > >>>>> The processing is largely a matter of > >> associating the > >>>> immediate sensations > >>>>> with other notion already stored in > memory. > >> That > >>>> inventory of memories, > >>>>> plus the > >>>>> intricacies of our associating > apparatus, > >> result in > >>>> new notion that can be > >>>>> of > >>>>> wide variation from mind to mind -- > variation > >> and > >>>> degree of "recognition". > >>>>> > >>>>> If confronted by an elaborate > mathematical > >> formula, > >>>> many of us can go no > >>>>> further than perhaps > "recognizing" > >> it as a > >>>> mathematical formula, while a > >>>>> mathematician's mind goes bounding > on to > >> all sorts > >>>> of new notion. When > >>>>> confronted with > >>>>> a scription in a foreign alphabet, > many of us > >> may > >>>> think, "Well, it's > >>>>> eastern > >>>>> Asian," -- and be wrong because > it turns > >> out to
