Identity and Interpretation of Public Artworks: A Challenge to Intentionalism

• Authors: Andrea Baldini
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

This paper explores whether MT and IT apply to public artworks. In particular, it discusses whether a public artwork can acquire through time a property that cannot possibly accord with the artist's intentions, and consequently, whether an interpretation that attributes that "new" property to that public artwork can be legitimate. It also clarifies when an artwork is public and introduces the example of a public artwork that seems to have acquired a property at odds with the artist's intentions. It discusses and argues that Carroll's intentionalist account of conversation is insufficient. Conversations, like public artworks, possess perlocutionary features that, at least sometimes, cannot be explained on intentionalist grounds.

Keywords

EN

art; public artwork; intentionalism; identity

• Publisher: Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu
• Journal: Kultura-Społeczeństwo-Edukacja
• Year: 2015
• Volume: 8
• Issue: 2
• Pages: 9-26

Dates

published

2015-06-15

Contributors

author

Andrea Baldini

• Institute ter Advanced Studies in Humanities and Social Sciences, Nanjing Unive rsity (C hina)

References

• AA.VV. (2012). Storm Over Statue Highlights Angst Over Indy Art. October 6, <http://www.courierpress.com/news/2012/oct/06/storm-over-statue-highlights-angst-over-indy-art/>.
• Austin J.L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Oxford.
• Bakhtin M. (1981). The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Austin, TX.
• Blair C., Jeppeson M.S., Pucci Jr E. (1991). Public Memorializing in Postmodernity: The Vietnam Veterans Memorial as Prototype, “Quarterly Journal of Speech” 77: 263-288.
• Bourdieu P. (1977). Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge, UK.
• Carroll N. (1992). Art, Intention, and Conversation. [In:] G. Iseminger (ed.). Intention and Interpretation. Philadelphia.
• Carroll N. (1995). Danto, Style, and Intention. “The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism” 53.
• Carroll N. (1997). The Intentional Fallacy: Defending Myself. “The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism” 55.
• Danto A. (1998). Tilted Arc and Public Art. [In:] G. Horowitz, T. Huhn (eds). The Wake of Art: Criticism, Philosophy, and the Ends of Taste. Amsterdam.
• Davies D. (2004). Art as P erformance. Maiden, MA, Oxford, UK.
• Davies S. (2006). Authors’ Intentions, Literary Interpretation, and Literary Value. “British Journal of Aesthetics” 46.
• Dickie G. (2006). Intentions: Conversations and Art. “British Journal of Aesthetics” 46.
• Dourish P. (2001). Where the Action Is: The Foundations of Embodied Interaction. Cambridge, MA.
• Duranti A. (1986). The Audience as Co-Author: An Introduction. "Text” 6: 239-247.
• Duranti A. (1993). Intentions, Self, and Responsibility: An Essay in Samoan Ethnopragmatics. [In:] J.J. Hill (ed.), Responsibility and Evidence in Oral Discourse. Cambridge, New York.
• Duranti A. (ed.). (2005). A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology. Maiden, MA.
• Duranti A. (ed.). (2009). Linguistic Anthropology: A Reader. Maiden, MA.
• Duranti A. (2012). Anthropology and Linguistics. [In:] R. Fardon, et al. (eds.), SAGE Handbook of Social Anthropology. Los Angeles, CA, London, UK: 12-23.
• Duranti A., Goodwin Ch. (eds.). (1992). Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. Cambridge, UK.
• Eager E. et al (eds.). (2001). Women, Writing and the Public Sphere, 1700-1830. Cambridge.
• Gadamer H.-G. (1976). Philosophical Hermeneutics. Berkeley, CA.
• Gardiner M. (2004). Wild Publics and Grotesque Symposiums: Habermas and B akhtin on Dialogue, Everyday Life and the Public Sphere. [In:] N. Crossley, J.M. Roberts (eds.), After Habermas: New Perspectives on the Public Sphree. Oxford, Malden.
• Goldblatt D. (2011). Taking Art Personally: Austin, Performatives and Art. “Contemporary Aesthetics” 9 <http://www.contempaestheti.es.org/newvolume/pages/article.php?articleID« 612& searchstr=goldblatt>.
• Goodwin Ch. (1981). Conversational Organization: Interaction Between Speakers and Hearers. New York, NY.
• Grice H.P. (1957). Meaning. “Philosophical Review” 66.
• Grice H.P. (1968). Utterer’s Meaning, Sentence-Meaning and Word-Meaning. “Fundamentals of Language” 4.
• Habermas J. (1962). Strukturwandel der Offentlichkeit. Untersuchungen zu einer Kategorie der burgerlichen Gesellschafts. Darmstad and Neuwied.
• Habermas J. (1989). The Structural Transformation o f the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge, MA.
• Hein H. (1996). What Is Public Art? Time, Place, and Meaning. “The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism” 54.
• Hirsch E.D. (1960). Objective Interpretation, “PMLA” 75: 463-479.
• Hirsch E.D. (1966). Validity in Interpretation. New Haven.
• Hirsch E.D. (1984). Meaning and Significance Reinterpreted. “Critical Inquiry” 11.2.
• Knight Ch.K. (2008). Public Art: Theory, Practice and Populism. Oxford and Maiden.
• Knight Ch.K., Senie H.F. (2012). Editors’ Statement: Audience Response. “Public Art Dialogue” 2.
• Kochman Th. (1983). The Boundary Between Play and Nonplay in Black Verbal Dueling. “Language in Society” 12: 329-337.
• Landes J.B. (1988). Women and the Public Sphere in the Age of the French Revolution. Ithaca.
• Levinson J. (2011). Artworks and the Future. [In:] Music, Art, and Metaphysics: Essays in Philosophical Aesthetics. Oxford, New York, 179-214.
• Margolis J. (2010). The Cultural Space of the Arts and the Infelicities of Reductionism. New York, NY.
• Mikulay J.G. (2011). Another Look at the Grand Vitesse. “Public Art Dialogue”.
• Mitchell W.J.T. (1992a). Introduction: Utopia and Critique. [In:] W.J.T. Mitchell (ed.), Art and the Public Sphere. Chicago and London.
• Mitchell W.J.T. (1992b). The Violence of Public Art: Do the Right Thing. [In:] Art and the Public Sphere. Chicago and London.
• Parsons G., Carlson A. (2008). Functional Beauty. Oxford, UK, New York, NY.
• Richard M. (2008). When Truth Gives Out. Oxford, UK, New York, NY.
• Rospocher M. (2012). Beyond the Public Sphere: A Historiographical Transition. [In:] M. Rospocher (ed.), Beyond the Public Sphere: Opinions, Publics, Spaces in Early Modern Europe. Bologna, Berlin.
• Schegloff E.A., Sacks H. (1973). Opening Up Closings. “Semiotica” 8: 289-327.
• Senie H.F. (1992). Public Art and Public Response. [In:] H.F. Senie, S.Webster (eds.), Critical Issues in Public Art: Content, Context, and Controversy. New York.
• Senie H.F. (2002). The Tilted Arc Controversy: Dangerous Precedent? Minneapolis, MN.
• Stecker R. (1994). Art Interpretation. “The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism” 52: 193-206.
• Streek J. (1980). Speech Acts in Interaction: A Critique of Searle. “Discourse Processes” 3: 133-154.
• Taflinger N. (2012). Artur Silva Installs “Rock Steady Gravity Sketch” on the Avenue. Brazilian-Born Artist Pays Homage to Hip-Hop and Jazz. “The Indianapolis Star”, August 25, <http://www.indystar.com/article/20120824/THINGST0D003/208250321/Artur-Silvainstalls-Rock-Steady-Gravity-Sketch-Avenue>.
• Warner M. (2002). Publics and Counterpublics. New York.
• Wilson K. (1997). Confession of a Weak Anti-intentionalist: Exposing Myself. “The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism” 55.
• Wittgenstein L. (1953). Philosophical. Oxford, UK.
• Zuidervaart L. (2011). Art in Public: Politics, Economics, and Democratic Culture. New York.

Identifiers

DOI

10.14746/kse.2015.2.1