What good is art without intention?

"<b>The word 'art' is very slippery. It really has no importance in relation to one's work. I work for the pleasure, for the pleasure of the work, and everything else is a matter for the critics."

Manuel Alvarez Bravo</b>

Speaking as someone who has spent 38 years reading

philosophy I would have to say that there is no such thing as a

'simple philosophical question'. Well, OK, the question might

seem simple but the answers have kept philosophers in a job

since Thales of Miletus. As Wittgenstein said, 'The purpose of

philosophy is not to provide answers but to clarify questions'.

And to determine whether the artist has 'intent' you would need to

establish the existence of a mental state (unless you are a

materialist, in which case a neurochemical state) corresponding

to intention - which takes us into philosophy of mind.

The artist begins with a subtle/complicated emotion he feels. His intention is to create a form that expresses what he has felt. That is his intention as he works on the art object or performance. Non-artists also have subtle/complicated feelings. They express these, when the feelings are strong, through traditional rituals. If no ritual is available, they may seek a reflection of the emotions in a work of art.

It seems this thread is in hibernation but it's a topic worth pondering on a rainy Sunday in November.

1. I think art HAS to be made with a purpose, if only at least for self expression or for entertainment. If it does neither of these then if must follow there is neither an artist nor an audience. If this isn't so, then every material object should be considered art.

 

2. I wouldn't care whether or not an artwork was made with intent. For me, the pleasure of appreciating a piece of art as an audience is as important as the pleasure of creating one. How do we know what an artist's intent is anyway?

 

3. I think an artwork without intent doesn't become artwork until it has an appreciative audience, therefore it isn't "created" but rather "becomes" art at some point. If a crude piece of ancient pottery is discovered, it might be considered art, but it was probably created out of necessity and limited materials. Does that make it less artistic?

I would like to know what human communicative interaction (including "art") does not have intention. If there is communication then there is an intended or unintended purpose (aesthetic, emotional, intellectual, political, etc.) to the communication. When the intention is shared by the artist/communicator and the audience, as synergistically as is possible, then a reality is shared--communication is successful and the experience is satisfactory to both parties.