Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T07:10:12.142Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Intentionalism, Anti-Intentionalism, and Aesthetic Inquiry: Implications for the Teaching of Choreography

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 July 2014

Larry Lavender
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

One of the most heated debates in modern literary and aesthetic theory concerns the relevance to criticism in general, and to interpretation specifically, of information about an author/artist's intentions in creating a particular work. This intentionalist/anti-intentionalist debate is an important one for dance educators to examine and discuss with students, since teachers' beliefs about the relevance of an artist's intentions determine in large part the way they interpret and judge dances (and other works of art), and mentor student choreographers and critics. The critical advice of mentors who hold intentionalist assumptions naturally tends to be quite different from the input of those holding anti-intentionalist views.

The debate over artists' intentions began in earnest in 1946 with the publication of a provocative and now famous essay entitled “The Intentional Fallacy” by W.K. Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley. In this work the authors attacked the intentionalist idea that to achieve a valid, or true, interpretation of a work we must ascertain whatever meaning its maker intended it to possess. The essay laid the groundwork for a rigorous anti-intentionalism, which held that works of art and literature are autonomous entities whose meanings are carried entirely by their internal structures and do not depend on the so-called meaning-intentions of their creators.

Type
Articles
Information
Dance Research Journal , Volume 29 , Issue 1 , Spring 1997 , pp. 23 - 42
Copyright
Copyright © Congress on Research in Dance 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Armstrong, Paul B. “The Multiple Existence of a Literary Work.” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 44 (1986): 321–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barthes, Roland. Image, Music, And Text. New York: The Noonday Press, 1977.Google Scholar
Barzilai, Shuli, and Bloomfield, Morton W. “New Criticism and Deconstructive Criticism: Or What's New?” New Literary History 18.1 (1986): 151–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beardsley, Monroe C.The Possibility of Criticism. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1970.Google Scholar
Beardsley, Monroe C.Aesthetics: Problems in the Philosophy of Criticism. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World, Inc., 1958.Google Scholar
Bell, Clive. “The Aesthetic Hypothesis.” In Philosophy of Art and Aesthetics, edited by Tillman, Frank A. and Cahn, Steven M., 415–428. New York: Harper and Row, 1969.Google Scholar
Bleich, David. Subjective Criticism. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978.Google Scholar
Blom, Lynne Anne, and Chaplin, L. Tarin. The Intimate Act of Choreography. Pittsburgh: The University of Pittsburgh Press, 1986.Google Scholar
Bloom, Harold. Deconstruction and Criticism. New York: Seabury Press, 1979.Google Scholar
Burkhardt, Sigurd. “Notes on the Theory of Intrinsic Interpretation.” In Critical Theory Since Plato, edited by Adams, Hazard, 1201–1211. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1971.Google Scholar
Carroll, Noel. “Art, Intention, and Conversation.” In Intention and Interpretation, edited by Iseminger, Gary, 97–131. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1992.Google Scholar
Croce, Benedetto. Aesthetic as Science of Expression and General Linguistic. New York: The Noonday Press, 1909/1956.Google Scholar
Danneberg, Lutz, and Müller, Hans-Harald. “On Justifying the Choice of Interpretive Theories.” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 43 (1984): 7–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, Walter A. “The Fisher King: Wille zur Macht in Baltimore.” Critical Inquiry 10 (1984): 668–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Man, Paul. Blindness and Insight: Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983.Google Scholar
de Man, Paul. Allegories of Reading: Figural Languages in Rousseau, Nietzsche, Rilke, and Proust. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1979.Google Scholar
Derrida, Jacques. Of Grammalology. Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty, trans. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1976.Google Scholar
Dewey, John. Art As Experience. New York: Perigree Books, 1934.Google Scholar
Ecker, David W. “Justifying Aesthetic Judgments.” Art Education 20 (1967): 5–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ecker, David W. “The Artistic Process as Qualitative Problem Solving.” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 21.3 (1963): 283–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellfeldt, Lois. A Primer for Choreographers. Prospect Heights: Waveland Press, 1967.Google Scholar
Feldman, Edmund B.Varieties of Visual Experience. New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1971.Google Scholar
Fischer, Michael. Does Deconstruction Make Any Difference? Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985.Google Scholar
Fish, Stanley. Is There a Text in This Class? Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1980.Google Scholar
Graff, Gerald. “Interpretation on Tlön: A Response to Stanley Fish.” New Literary History 17.1 (1985): 109–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. P. “Utterer's Meaning and Intentions.” The Philosophical Review 78.2 (1969): 147–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. P. “Utterer's Meaning, Sentence Meaning, and Word Meaning.” Foundations of Language 4.3 (1968): 225–242.Google Scholar
Hayes, Elizabeth R.Dance Composition and Production. New York: A. S. Barnes, 1955.Google Scholar
H'Doubler, Margaret. Dance: A Creative Art Experience. New York: F. S. Crofts, 1940.Google Scholar
Hirsch, E. D.The Aims of Interpretation. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1976.Google Scholar
Hirsch, E. D.Validity in Interpretation. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoberman, J. “Bad Movies.” Film Comment 16.4 (1980): 7–12.Google Scholar
Humphrey, Doris. The Art of Making Dances. New York: Grove Press, Inc., 1959.Google Scholar
Husserl, Edmund. Cartesian Meditations. Cairns, D., trans. The Hague: M. Nijhoff, 1960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ihde, Don. Experimental Phenomenology. New York: State University of New York Press, 1986.Google Scholar
Juhl, P. D.Interpretation. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1980.Google Scholar
Kaelin, Eugene F.An Aesthetics for Art Educators. New York: Teachers College Press, 1989.Google Scholar
Knapp, Steven, and Michaels, Walter Benn. Against Theory. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krausz, Michael. “Intention and Interpretation: Hirsch and Margolis.” in Intention and Interpretation, edited by Iseminger, Gary, 152–166. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1992.Google Scholar
Lang, Berel. “The Intentional Fallacy Revisited.” British Journal of Aesthetics 14.4 (1974): 306–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lavender, Larry. Dancers Talking Dance. Champaign: Human Kinetics, 1996.Google Scholar
Lavender, Larry. “Understanding Interpretation.” Dance Research Journal 27.2 (1995): 25–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lavender, Larry. “Critical Evaluation in the Choreography Class.” Ph.D. Diss., New York University, 1994.Google Scholar
Lavender, Larry., and Predock-Linnell, Jennifer. “Standing Aside and Making Space: Mentoring Student Choreographers.” Impulse 4.3 (1996): 235–252.Google Scholar
Lentricchia, Frank. After the New Criticism. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1980.Google Scholar
Levinson, Jerrold. “Intention and Interpretation: A Last Look.” In Intention and Interpretation, edited by Iseminger, Gary, 221–256. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1992.Google Scholar
Lyas, Colin. “Wittgensteinian Intentions.” In Intention and Interpretation, edited by Iseminger, Gary, 132–151. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1992.Google Scholar
Lyas, Colin. “Anything Goes: The Intentional Fallacy Revisited.” British Journal of Aesthetics 23.4 (1983): 291–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minton, Sandra Cerney. Choreography. Champaign: Human Kinetics, 1986.Google Scholar
Morgenroth, Joyce. Dance Improvisations. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nathan, Daniel O. “Irony, Metaphor, and the Problem of Intention.” In Intention and Interpretation, edited by Iseminger, Gary, 183–202. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1992.Google Scholar
Rorty, Richard. “Philosophy Without Principles.” In Against Theory, edited by Knapp, Steven and Michaels, Walter Benn, 132–138. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1982.Google Scholar
Rosenblatt, Louise M. “The Aesthetic Transaction.” In Aesthetics and Arts Education, edited by Smith, Ralph A. and Simpson, Alan, 347–354. Chicago: University of Illinios Press, 1991.Google Scholar
Savile, Anthony. “Tradition and Interpretation.” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 36.3 (1978): 303–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schleich, Joan, and Dupont, Betty. Dance: The Art of Production. 2nd ed.Pennington, NJ: Princeton Book Company Publishers, 1988.Google Scholar
Scholes, Robert. “Who Cares About the Text?” Novel 17.2 (1984): 171–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shusterman, Richard. “Interpreting With Pragmatist Intentions.” In Intention and Interpretation, edited by Iseminger, Gary, 167–182. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1992a.Google Scholar
Shusterman, Richard. Pragmatist Aesthetics. Cambridge: Blackwell, 1992b.Google Scholar
Shusterman, Richard. “Croce on Interpretation: Deconstruction and Pragmatism.” New Literary History 20.1 (1988a): 199–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shusterman, Richard. “Interpretation, Intention, and Truth.” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 46 (1988b): 399–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith-Autard, Jacqueline M.Dance Compositions Practical Guide for Teachers. London: A & C. Black, 1992.Google Scholar
Taine, Hippolyte. “History of English Literature.” In Critical Theory Since Plato, edited by Adams, Hazard, 602–614. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1971.Google Scholar
Tolhurst, William E. “On What a Text is and How it Means.” British Journal of Aesthetics 19 (1979): 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tompkins, Jane P., ed. Reader Response Criticism. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, Margery J.New Dance: Approaches to Non-Literal Choreography. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1971.Google Scholar
Wimsatt, W. K., and Beardsley, Monroe C. “The Affective Fallacy.” Sewannee Review 57 (1949): 31–55.Google Scholar
Wimsatt, W. K., “The Intentional Fallacy.” Sewanee Review 54 (1946): 468–488.Google Scholar
Wollheim, Richard. Art and its Objects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980.Google Scholar