On Art and Intention
The author discusses a puzzle about the place of intention in art, a puzzle first articulated by Richard Wollheim in his well-known lecture ‘On Drawing an Object’. The puzzle arises if we try to hold jointly three commonly-held claims, viz. (1) Art is intentional; (2) The artist, in making a work of...
| Auteur principal: | |
|---|---|
| Type de support: | Électronique Article |
| Langue: | Anglais |
| Vérifier la disponibilité: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | En cours de chargement...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Publié: |
Wiley-Blackwell
1997
|
| Dans: |
Heythrop journal
Année: 1997, Volume: 38, Numéro: 2, Pages: 172-179 |
| Sujets non-standardisés: | B
Wollheim
B intention (philosophy) B Richard B art (philosophy) |
| Accès en ligne: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Édition parallèle: | Non-électronique
|
| Résumé: | The author discusses a puzzle about the place of intention in art, a puzzle first articulated by Richard Wollheim in his well-known lecture ‘On Drawing an Object’. The puzzle arises if we try to hold jointly three commonly-held claims, viz. (1) Art is intentional; (2) The artist, in making a work of art, needs to observe what he has done, in order to know what he has done; (3) A necessary condition of intentional action is that when an agent acts intentionally then he knows what he is (intentionally) doing without observation, or any need for it. Prima facie it would appear that we cannot hold all these claims together. The author spells out the problem, discusses Wollheim’s own solution to it (which he rejects) and seeks to dispel the puzzle by closer attention to intention and action in relation to artistic production. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1468-2265 |
| Contient: | Enthalten in: Heythrop journal
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1111/1468-2265.00043 |