User:Psp919/sandbox

= Artists Intention = Within aesthetics, the artist's intention refers to the motivational factors behind the artist in the creation of their work. Between sensation and knowledge, the viewer interprets the artwork. The artist may constrain features to provoke one or multiple interpretations of the work. But once the artwork is released into the world, there is a question around who really decides the truth of the artist’s intention: the viewer, the art establishment, or the artist? Similar to debates surrounding authorial intent within literary theory, there are debates around how art should be appreciated and judged. Some believe a work of art should be interpreted according to the artist’s intention, claiming it is important that the artist is understood. Others argue the personal meaning and interpretation attributed by the viewer is what matters the most.

Theoretical Approaches
Theoretical approaches such as Structuralism propose understanding should reflect the meaning intended by the creator. Within literature Authorial Intentionalism proposes the author's intentions should limit the interpretation. In contrast, William Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley proposed in their 1946 essay "The Intentional Fallacy", the intention of the author is unavailable and undesirable in appreciating the work. With the emergence of Post-structuralism in the 1960’s the literary theorist Roland Barthes also questioned any reference to the creator’s identity in his seminal essay Death of the Author (1967), believing interpretation should not be restricted or constrained by the author. In applying this theoretical approach to art, the artwork becomes autonomous, the sole source for understanding and interpretation. The artists intention and even information about the artist themselves would be irrelevant. In contrast, Benjamin Bloom’s Taxonomy for the arts, proposed a categorisation whereby the creator plays an important role in the judgement of art, a view supported in philosophical debates.

Post-Modernism and the subsequent practice of pluralism in the creation of art, has led to changes in people’s expectations and demands. The internet has enabled access to information, images and attitudes about art and artists. When people view art today, they bring their own attitudes, thoughts and intentions towards art. The artists intention becomes secondary to the viewer’s interpretation and aesthetic judgement. This does not mean the artists intentions will be ignored. But that they are exposed to translation by the art gallery and interpretation by the viewer.

Artists Intention and the Art Institution
Interpretation in art refers to the attribution of meaning to a work. Knowledge about the work will influence the viewers interpretation and aesthetic judgement. The art institutions, through curation and narrative, present art for public consumption and they can crucially influence what people perceive and understand about a work of art. Unless the artist has left documentary evidence of intent, any narrative provided by the museum or gallery will be their ‘vision’ of the artists intention. This is true for historical works of art and can also be true of contemporary art from living artists. The art institutions may be pressured in their interpretation of the artists intention by cultural norms and attitudes within society. Especially if the artist’s work is considered difficult or controversial.

The restoration and conservation of art as artefact can also highlight the fleeting nature of the artists intention. Over time, artworks can change in appearance through damage, or by neglect. Restoration and conservation require decisions to be made regarding not only the application of the latest scientific methods. But also, important decisions reflecting what the artist originally intended for the work. The nature of materials used in modern art and contemporary art makes conservation increasingly challenging.

Artists Intention and the Conception Intention
The artist does not always fully realise their original intentions. The process of creating art results in modifications and new directions. Inspiration is emergent and spontaneous, coming from both conscious and unconscious thought. Intuitive choices are made about techniques, material, and processes to satisfy intention and emotion. A creative process described by cognitive psychologist's as having four main stages of: preparation, incubation, illumination and verification.

The artists intentions have always taken inspiration from life, death and ideas around what it is be human. But artists are products of their time and culture. Throughout history patrons have imposed their views on the public through artwork. Meaning the artists intensions may have been subverted. Artists themselves can have strong political and social views which can manifest in the work. Such as the famous Guernica, painted by Picasso in response to the bombing of Guernica.

Arguably the artists intention is strongest in the creation of conceptual art. Each element of the work is crucial to the concept. These works can be the most difficult for the viewer to understand. Contemporary artists can express themselves more freely than artists of the past. They can choose from a range of materials and visual technologies. Art consumers are attuned to these differences.

Artists Intention and the Display Intention
Whether it is for personal satisfaction, financial reward or simply by being compelled to create, eventually the artist must make a conscious decision when to release the artwork for display. Thereafter, the artists intention cannot be reconstructed.

Artists Intention and the Viewer
According to evolutionary aesthetics art is considered special. Although we experience aesthetics daily, according to empirical evidence in the psychology of aesthetics, art is processed by us using different criteria. It was Marcel Duchamp (1887-1996), thought of by many in the art world as the father of Conceptual Art, who introduced the concept of giving a readymade object ‘art’ status. Today the informed audience expects that within contemporary art, potentially anything could be presented as art. There is anticipation by the viewer that art will hold an intent to communicate something worthy of understanding. Sensing an intent, the viewer may be affected. However, the artist’s intention may not be overtly conveyed. The viewer is required to engage with art, making sense from visual cues, prior knowledge and the official guiding information provided. What one person finds compelling another person will not. The appeal of art is that it is subjective. The viewer is free to make their own aesthetic judgement and to ignore the artists intention.

Psychology
Psychologists in aesthetics have developed theories and frameworks to explain our appreciation and judgement of art. It was Gestalt psychology which proposed visual perception was an active process involving not just vision (seeing) but also cognitive processing (thinking). Since the work of Rudolf Arnheim, cognitive psychologists have been able to establish that human vision can be deceived and manipulated. When an image is not entirely clear, people will try to ‘construct’ a solution to what they are seeing. Some people find this construction process pleasurable and rewarding. Artists could be regarded as experts in visual perception. Throughout history they have developed techniques and strategies to intentionally direct attention and intensify the visual experience.

Neuroaesthetics
Since Professor Zemir Zeki named the discipline neuroaesthetics, researchers have investigated the neural correlates of aesthetic judgment and creation of art. An emerging discipline, neuroaesthetics aims at understanding the role of creativity by mapping aesthetic processing to biological bases in the brain. Neuroaesthetic researchers have been interested in the intentions of the artist. Neuroscientist Vilayanur S. Ramachandran and philosopher William Hirstein put forward a theory of 'Eight laws of artistic experience'. Their speculative theory was developed from ideas of artistic intentionality, proposing a set of heuristics that artists deploy to optimally 'titillate' the visual areas of the brain. Frameworks for the aesthetic experience have been proposed where the artist's intentions, the artwork and the viewer drive the aesthetic experience. Researchers in neuroaesthetics propose we can learn a lot about the operation of our perceptual processing by examining the artists intentional strategies.