Download
1 / 15
150 likes | 277 Views
Philosophy and the Arts: Lecture 22:. The Artist’s Intention. The Poets’ Corner. Ode to Betty Hodgden…. This may seem an odd place to begin. Aren’t we supposed to be talking about the famous essay on “The Intentional Fallacy” by Wimsatt and Beardsley?? Yes, we are.
E N D
Philosophy and the Arts:Lecture 22: The Artist’s Intention
Ode to Betty Hodgden… • This may seem an odd place to begin. Aren’t we supposed to be talking about the famous essay on “The Intentional Fallacy” by Wimsatt and Beardsley?? Yes, we are. • But when I was a student, I had a mad crush on my English teacher, and took every course she taught. I had to go see the “Poets’ Corner,” because I hung on her every word, as she described the great poets, and she would always conclude by saying, “…and he was buried in the Poets’ Corner.” • Why did she do that?? Clearly, she thought that if I understood the life of the poet, I could better grasp his intentions—and that seemed essential if I wanted to understand or evaluate his work.
Beardsley disagrees…. • In their essay, Wimsatt and Beardsley argue that the artist’s intention does not determine the goodness of an art work, nor does it always provide the best, or proper, interpretation. Why not?? • For one thing, we don’t always know the artist’s intention…consider the Lascaux cave paintings, or the artist may be dead (sadly, many are.)
But there is a better reason… • It is important to note that Wimsatt and Beardsley—and later, just Beardsley—usually take their examples from literature- the written or spoken word. • In an earlier attempt they say “Evidence that a work has a certain actual meaning is derived from a study of the work itself, the words in which it is written, and their syntax.” In other words, meaning is a public matter, not an instance of mind-reading.
Consider two examples… • At one point the authors say “Judging a poem is like judging a pudding or a machine. One demands that it work.” If I prepare what I hope will be a tasty pudding, and it turns out to be inedible, I cannot change things by pleading, “Well, I meant for it to be good!!” • In his later book, Beardsley imagines someone saying “I like my secretary better than my wife.” We know what that means. If we don’t want to say that, we need to substitute another sentence, perhaps “For some reason, my wife hates my secretary, whereas I think she’s O. K. So I like her better than my wife does.” Again, what the sentence means is a public matter.
Title?? • The story is that Whistler called this work “Arrangement in Gray and Black, No.1” and the art dealers talked him into adding “,Being a Portrait of the Artist’s Mother.” What’s the point?? • Well, many philosophers (including Isabel Hungerland) say one sense in which the artist’s intention matters is when we mean, “What were you doing??” If the artist is doing an “arrangement…” then it seems wrong to say, “One should be kinder to one’s Mum.” • Remember Dr. J. B. Smith’s advice…When you enter a artist’s studio, don’t ask, “What’s it a picture of?” Ask “What was your point of departure?” The title is often a clue.
Why so different?? • Intentionalism is making a comeback, because of cases like these. Constable lived near the Salisbury Cathedral, and did many paintings of it, usually bright and cheerful. • But his wife had died before the darker work was painted. Note that the workers continue in the fields, indicating that, somehow, life goes on. It is said the rainbow was added later, a symbol of God’s promise that He has not deserted us, and there is still reason to hope for tomorrow.
As everyone knows, the French finally figured out the best way to control Protestants was just to kill them all—a man could escape being killed by wearing a white armband, signifying that he was Catholic. In this work by Millais, a girl tries in vain to convince her lover to take the band, and he refuses---doesn’t it help to know that?? And this case…
Monroe C. Beardsley (1915-1985) • During most of the last half of the 20th century, Monroe Beardsley was the leading figure in aesthetics, though he died in 1985. I think he still is. It was not because he was always right on all issues, but he thought and wrote about all issues, in a way that had to be respected. • I close with one more example in which I think he was wrong. In a paper on “The Philosophy of Literature,” he responded to someone who had said that it was one thing to claim intentionalism should not be used in art criticism, and quite another to use this “fallacy” to distinguish art from nonart… Beardsley replied ”…duly noted. In distinguishing between art and nonart in the particular case of literature….we have to appeal at some point to an artistic intention.” Shock!! I should have thought the arguments would be the same. Why not??
