Hi, Monday, September 22, 2003, 7:39:34 PM, you wrote:
>> Who would be correct, the critic, or us, who had the benefit of the composer's >> desire for how it should sound? Seems to me the same would apply to a >> photographer's interpretation of his image. > Don't have time right now to go dig up the link I want to post > here (I'm in the middle of something with a deadline), but > Google for "intentional fallacy" if you're interested in seeing > writings on this question. I'll try to find the good essay I > read a while ago, later. I think you're talking about the anti-intentionalist theory of art. Something like it was raised here a few days ago in the Leni Riefenstahl thread. The theory is, very roughly, that we should only pay heed to intentions that are embodied in the work of art itself. Anything we learn from the artist's life, diaries, journals, manifesto etc. are irrelevant to critical interpretation. Anti-intentionalists say that the Intentional Fallacy is to rely on external evidence to criticise a work of art. -- Cheers, Bob mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
