But we don't know what an aesthetic experience is. And there is art which does not intend an aesthetic experience but does evoke it anyway, or once does and then does not. Your model gives the artist too much authority. We don't even know who the artist is. Anyone can be an artist or not at any time. When such an artist denies that X has aesthetic intention and yet it does to the viewer at hand, what then?
Your model fails on several counts, including the transience the identity of the artist and the uncertain location of intentonality. Further, the sunset can be beautiful or art without being translated into some "fictional" medium. Many people gaze at the sunset and think it's the best artwork they know...and say nothing to anyone. WC --- Mike Mallory <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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
