On Oct 26, 2012, at 3:06 PM, William Conger <[email protected]> wrote:
> I agree fully with Saul on this. I've said it here before several times: The artist may require an intention to do an artwork but there is no guarantee that this intention can be elicited by the resulting artwork in the minds of its viewers. It's the Intentional Fallacy. and as Saul points out many new, unanticipated 'conditions and circumstances' affect the work beyond the scope > of the artist and the execution, and afterward, of the work. "May require"? The artist does require an intention to "do an artwork," but it unfolds in several stages of taxonomic clarity. The artist sets out to make a WoA, whatever kind. I don't think the artist goes into a room, stumbles around for several hours or days, and then say, "I'll be damned. I made a painting." I believe that the artist always begins with the intention to create a work of art. After that, the artist makes more narrowly focused decisions about kind of work, method of making, method of expression, "subject" matter, etc. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Michael Brady
