THE ART OF IMMORAL ARTISTS HOW WE OUGHT TO ADDRESS THE INTENTIONAL FALLACY: THE ETHICAL IMPLICATIONS OF ROSANNA SPARACINO beyond hispower to intend about itor control it.” “isdetachedartwork the from author and at birth goes about the world Their anti-intentionalist argument on isbased the notion the that meanings attachedmeanings to words.” concerns “the character of the author, or about private and semi-private andWimsatt intermediate Beardsley describe evidence which that as aestheticformal elements—avoids Finally, committing the fallacy. isinternalthat and to the available artwork to the public—such as understanding of the work.” they “look to features external to the work for help incoming to an and Beardsley argue one that commits the intentional when fallacy and internal, intermediate. external, Wimsatt artworks: Ultimately, created it. or the infullbyassuming intentpart or purpose of the person who when onefallacy attempts the to discern meaning of apiece in of art while relyingart on authorial intent.1 One commits the intentional philosophy Monroe Beardsley discuss the problem of to interpret trying 6 5 4 3 2 1 they suggest itisdifficult that todistinguish intermediate evidence from of itonly sometimes leads one to commit the intentional Further, fallacy. problem of evidence withthisthird itismore isthat type slippery; use how or why created the artist the work. letters,private—journals, or reported conversations—that reveals available nor desirable for” astandard as determining thissuccess. of work, anartistic “the design or intention of the author isneither ABSTRACT I. THE INTENTIONAL FALLACY

Wimsatt andBeardsley,Wimsatt “TheIntentionalFallacy,” 478. andBeardsley,Wimsatt “TheIntentionalFallacy,” 478. Education 22,no.3(October1988):66,doi:10.2307/3333051. ItalicsAdded. of Aesthetic Garry Hagberg,“ArtisticIntentionand MentalImage,”Journal andBeardsley,Wimsatt “TheIntentional Fallacy,” 470. andBeardsley,Wimsatt “TheIntentional Fallacy,” 468. Sewanee Review54,no.3(Summer1946):468-488. andMonroe Beardsley, Wimsatt William “TheIntentionalFallacy,” The They examine three types of evidenceThey examine three types used when interpreting as repugnantas when committed egregious has the artist acts. however,cases, apiece istechnically that ofmay art magnificent be experienced neither isitsmeaning and value ever entirely separated context. from Insome a piece isnot of art determined byanysingle piece of contextual information, relevant and when important interpreting While the meaning and art. value of historical, or political information. such, As biographies artist’s are always I argue biographical that information isakinto other non-aesthetic, social, In “The Intentional Fallacy,” and Wimsatt literary William theorist 1 Their primary argument Their when isthat, primary the assessing success 4 External evidence External includes anything 6 Wimsatt and Wimsatt Beardsley note the that 5 However, evidence using 3

2

23 The Intentional Fallacy 24 Stance Volume 12 / April 2019 where the immoral character of isknown, the artist thisinformation understanding, interpretations, or reinterpretations Incases of art. characterof and isimportant anartist’s should color our general regardless of they what may have intended, iscentral to myposition. Acknowledging someone that was responsible for creating the work, anecessary condition iscertainly artist artwork—the for itscreation. the work other many contribute of factors art—as to the creation of an are. still interpreted regardless degrading as of the what speaker’s intentions example where asexist remark, intended to beahumorous quip, is Wilson demonstratesIn fact, how untenable intentionalism iswithan cannot control after created the reading of has ultimate hisart it. he someone did it. awayartist the from work or, suggests,forget H.Gass William as that detachment of the author, Ido not one that agree canever abstract the works. However, unlike and Wimsatt what Beardsley assume about the other aesthetic elements to understanding inform our critical of the but biographical instead bytaking information into account alongside ought irrespective ofart says the what artist about hiswork. Iargue we that 11 10 9 8 7 criticism.” difficulty for not always to draw aline easy between examples, and hence the arises and [intermediate],[external] into shade one another so subtly itis that evidence.external of evidence, They admit,“the three types especially artworks.” of are the never artist relevant to interpretation of the meaning of position where “reference to intention artistic and the biography information. Noel interprets Carroll anti-intentionalism hard a as with the intentional and the role fallacy of biographical the artist’s this information ought to have on interpretation. information to interpretation but instead deny the constraint strict that intentionalists do not deny necessarily the relevance of biographical anti-intentionalism, philosopher Kent anti- that Wilson clarifies 1984): 11,http://www.jstor.org/stable/40547668. H.Gass, “TheDeathoftheAuthor,”William Salmagundi , no.65(October “ConfessionofaWeak Anti-Intentionalist,”310-311. Wilson, doi:10.2307/431801. ofAestheticsandArtCriticism55,no.3(July1997):310, The Journal “ConfessionofaWeak Anti-Intentionalist:ExposingMyself,” Kent Wilson, Aesthetics andArtCriticism55,no.3(1997):305,doi:10.2037/431800. Noel Carroll, of “TheIntentionalFallacy:DefendingMyself,”TheJournal andBeardsley,Wimsatt “TheIntentional Fallacy,” 478. 10 I argue biographical that information the regarding immorality I agree withbothI agree Wilson and and Wimsatt Beardsley anartist that Besides and Wimsatt Beardsley, other philosophers have engaged to interpret or understand not intends the art as artist or suggests Myown argument embraces the notion we that caninterpret 8 However, inresponse interpretation to Carroll’s of 11 While may not the artist beasufficient condition for 7

9

and istaken into account when deciding gets kind what of made, art Allen’s she filmsis that does not consider that our attentionmatters the problem with her we that claim are “uncompromised” inenjoying by the Manhattan that film, does indeed endorse pedophilia. Second, change or undermine arguments, stemming evidence from provided not Manhattan was Ihavethat already discussed irrelevant. as IfAllen suggested that had intention to suggest Allen that does not endorse pedophilia—a notion being entirely compelling. First, she relies on the notion of artistic about ofcounterfactual pedophilia. the permissibility interpret the theas inviting, films endorsement through imagining, of a philosophers of fiction “the term puzzle of imaginative resistance.” suchartists, Woody as Allen. Her solution isconnected to what solution to the problem of enjoying the work of morally problematic to address of problematic the art artists. biographical information. view This provides amorally defensible way interpretation should not so itneglects that restrict criticism general ought to betaken into consideration. legitimate critical of Theories 15 14 13 12 imagining.” in…counterfactual us tothose are engage asking passages experience resistance imaginative when “we are led to think…that fictionalask them certain Stockto imagine. passages suggests that we puzzle,This she explains, iswhere readers what resist imagining case. be the given case” some that other were scenario imagined also the of would what is“inservice kindThis of or imagining could or might is acceptable or inanyway permissible.” any of intended hisfilms, to bebelieved bythe viewer, pedophilia that Manhattan she. As phrases it“there for isnosave serious implication in because Allen’s problematic values are not endorsed inanyof hiswork, concludes we that are not morally compromised inenjoying hiswork itrelatesAs to the problem of Woody Allen and hisfilmography, Stock to authorialascribable intention, readers would not experience resistance. Stock’s view, belief had conclusions inthese counterfactual not been make and believe conclusions. counterfactual certain However, in II. IMAGINATIVE RESISTANCE Stock, “Imaginative Resistance.” Stock, “Imaginative Resistance.” Stock, “ImaginativeResistance.” woody-allen-problem. thinkingaboutfiction.me/blog/2017/11/12/imaginative-resistance-and-the- Thinking AboutFiction(blog),November13,2017,https://www. Kathleen Stock,“ImaginativeResistance andtheWoody AllenProblem,” There problems are two withStock’s argument keep that itfrom Philosopher Kathleen Stock relies on intentionalism to develop a 14 Some pieces of fiction,as intended bythe author, direct us to intended to endorse pedophilia, would that not 15 Therefore, one cannot 12

13

25 The Intentional Fallacy 26 Stance Volume 12 / April 2019 problematic attitude.” grounds for condemning when art the work appears to “endorse a about moral the life. artist’s uninfected, our appreciative response isunaffected byany revelations when isnot the art obviously infected. Inother words, is ifthe artwork arguesPatridge there that isno plausible similar to claim bemade 19 18 17 16 response...but we might they thinkthat should.” character of “not the artist only legitimately affects our appreciative or problematic character. Stephanie argues Patridge the that immoral connected to isknown what or believed about immorality anartist’s especially when we believe the work demonstrates, expresses, or is position, and itisworth further. examining reasons. Numerous philosophers have withthisparticular engaged work suggests these that works may berejected for moral and aesthetic anaesthetic signals inart) flawresistance inthe immorality (regarding pedophilia. However, Stock’s argument the that problem of imaginative enjoying the works of Allen, even when hisfilms do not endorse without trouble. Therefore, itseems we may becompromised in support, benefits, financial and even persist in theirtransgressions moral byproblematic ismade that these willcontinue artists artists, to enjoy we that recognize to fund are to look willing art at and appreciate art curated, or supported. financially Ifpeople withthe financial power characters of blame and disapprobation.” “vicious without manners are described being marked withthe proper ofStandard Taste” where he we that claims cannot “relish” works where the piece. Specifically, she draws on David Hume’s argument the in“Of believe thiskind that of endorsement undermines the aesthetic value of properties to, and overall evaluation work.” of anartist’s life willaffect our interpretation of, attribution of appreciative relevant suggests “[i]tseems that sometimes that about moral facts anartist’s OTHERAPPROACHES III. DEALING WITH INFECTED ART: Dadlez, “Flaws,Aesthetic andMoral.” morally-troubling-artists/#Dadlez. November 21,2017,http://dailynous.com/2017/11/21/philosophers-art- Eva Dadlez,“Flaws,Aestheticand Moral,”DailyNous,lastmodified Patridge, “SomeThoughtsonArt.” artists/#Patridge. dailynous.com/2017/11/21/philosophers-art-morally-troubling- Masturbation,” DailyNous,lastmodifiedNovember21,2017, http:// Stephanie Patridge,“SomeThoughts onArt,Appreciation, and Similar to Patridge,Similar Eva Dadlez posits there that may beethical There are reasons for condemning of immoral the art artists, 18 Moreover, she notes other that philosophers 19 She then notes Carroll’s 16 Specifically, she 17 However, However, evaluation and aesthetic evaluation. one study suggests there that isastrong correlation between one’s moral and canexperience, Stock as discusses, resistance. imaginative Infact, less thosethe artwork, works are potentially aesthetically flawed or at least to suggestare when that manifests right of in anartist the immorality so common. especially since theart, revealed of our seems favorite immorality artists throughstrictly one’s to amoral appreciate lens, ability thismay ruin Bethand point Willard Mary out, ifone views and appreciates art philosophers historical importance. As or maintains Matthew Strohl institutions—so demonstrates long the as art impressive technical skill interpretation—that these works should beremoved our from or “rejecting” these works Ido not of art. withone agree possible mean when they suggest we that have grounds for “condemning” so our that appreciative responses are unaffected. itseems unlikely highly fact, one that could leave knowledge that behind isimmoral, andan artist directly reminds the artwork you of odious that aesthetically appealing. Further, once one becomes aware of that the fact judged the actions of the subject artistic to bewrong also viewed less itas 24 23 22 21 20 of problematic isinfected artists—regardless ifthe or artwork not—I Nevertheless, since Iammore concerned withhow to address the art morally flawed works indicates anaestheticflaw. assessment of Hume’s argument to enjoy suggests that thisincapacity entirely Gaut diminished. Beyrs suggests, As are less goodinone morally-rooted way, but their overall isnot quality inevitably altered inlight of these immoral revelations. These works life.” is doing so “at the expense of severely impoverishing their aesthetic good.One may findharder it to become immersed inthe artwork Press, 2001), 183. at theIntersection , ed.Jerrold Levinson(Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Berys Gaut,“TheEthicalCriticism of Art,”inAestheticsandEthics:Essays Strohl “Aesthetics,Morality.” andWillard, com/2017/11/21/philosophers-art-morally-troubling-artists/#StrohlWillard. Lived Life,”DailyNous,lastmodifiedNovember21,2017, http://dailynous. Matthew Strohl “Aesthetics,Morality, andMaryBethWillard, andaWell- (unpublished manuscript,University ofPugetSound,2010),5. Shen-yi Liao,“Genre ModeratesMorality’s InfluenceonAesthetics” Dadlez, “Flaws,AestheticandMoral.” However, Dadlez and are Patridge unclear about they what reprehensible attitudes. strongly expressive, butaesthetically badinsofaras…itmanifestsethically be aesthetically goodinsofarasitisbeautiful,formallyunifiedand artworks arebutasinglekind. So…aworkofartmaybejudgedto there ofaesthetic areaplurality values,ofwhich the ethical valuesof 23 However, itappears our that aesthetic correct evaluations are 22 The person who views through amoralistic art lens 24 21 Participants inthe study who 20 Dadlez and Patridge 27 The Intentional Fallacy 28 Stance Volume 12 / April 2019 25 embedded so deeply and imperceptibly—it feels like anobjective anideologyfrom already embedded inone’s belief system, and— ostensibly “pure” aesthetic evaluation and interpretation stems actually informed bythe status quo or dominant ideology. cultural Therefore, interpretation already inculcated beliefs withcertain , which are often ignore we that the fact enter modes of aesthetic evaluation and artistic they are doing aneutral, pure, or objective are analysis choosing to Those like who thinkor artworks. argue that artifacts with cultural assumption or ideological framework—with us when we engage of isnearly anything impossible. We something—an often bring The problem apure obtaining withthisisthat readingor interpretation grounds, separate anycontextual from information such biography. as should beinterpreted, appreciated, withon “pure” or aesthetic engaged or other venues where of problematic withthe one art may engage artists. revealed, thisknowledge to bring withthem into theaters, the galleries, Audiences have and when is critics of anartist aduty, the immorality is uninfected, even ifthe isnot moral failing touched on inthe art. colored, even and Patridge Dadlez as istrue suggest. This ifthe artwork infected, our direct aesthetic evaluations of the work are and should be knowledge into of account. immorality the is artist’s Ifthe artwork violation Polanski’s than of rape afemale child. Polanski. Her ismore reasoning Hitler’s racism isthat of asettled moral how well thisline of argument would apply to the films of Roman when itcomes of to the Adolf artworks Hitler, but she isnot so sure of work the artist’s awhole. as She suggests thismay bethe that case violations are so egregious they that could plausibly the merit rejection interpretive theories. believe and Patridge Dadlez ultimately do not enough gofar withtheir the case of Hitler’s art. the of case Hitler’s art. favorite work isamorally of flawed art individual is not atension felt in tension we that feel when we find out the that person who created our loss, at least itcompares as to the potential loss of aPolanskiThe film. world’sThe art Hitler painting isnot lack of anoriginal much of a technicalhigh nor ability, does ithave historic aesthetic importance. isnotHitler’s art completely satisfying, since hiswork does not exhibit ART: OBJECTIONS AND IMPLICATIONS IV. APPLYING MY APPROACH TO ALL Patridge,“Some ThoughtsonArt.” As IhaveAs noted, some anti-intentionalists hold artworks that myview our isthat interpretationsAgain, should of art take Interestingly, also considers Patridge where cases moral certain 25 Patridge’s attention Patridge’s to can have their reputations protected or elevated bytheir artistry. abuses. Inother words, are no artists longer glorified persons who allows for skillsor the “genius” artist’s to override and hismoral erase result myapproach from avoid the “pure” aesthetic which analysis approach punishes not the artist, the patron. The interpretations that but rather always as relevant and always my Ultimately, important. acknowledgethat biographical information not as just sometimes relevant my approach the urges development and theories embracing of critical theirthat moral transgressions are relevant and unacceptable. Further approach higher has demands for and their artists character bysignaling believe comes the goodart as that expense of being abadperson. My tolerate or accept problematic that are the artists Nor norm. need we is considered myapproach, On legitimate criticism. we need not approach ithelps isthat to reshape the culture around and what artists likewise athreat to the dominance and of artists. privilege male approach to the problem of of is immoral withthe dealing art artist’s reputation of those isseriously threatened. artists male aresult, As my alongsideright anyother aesthetic interpretation the status of and art, and consider of artists, concerning male the immorality thisinformation group Ifwe of artists. acknowledge male largely biographical information implicitly or explicitly, intentionally or unintentionally—to protect the and aesthetic critics male wish— theorists the primarily Ultimately, does that notcriticism endanger the status of prominent artists. male world, there incentives are structural to put forth non-provocational dominant viewpoint male inconjunction withthe art male-saturated isultimately viewpoint. amale legitimate criticism Further, given this dominance world inthe art reveals theviewpoint that of counts what as ingeneral.field and art criticism For of art one, recognitionmale of this other non-aesthetic features to do withthe has dominance male inthe of misogynistic behavior—is not considered legitimate as critically as whose of artists male moral transgressionimmorality are so often forms biographical information about when artists—especially itconcerns the historical,social, and political context. Perhaps of the reason part why another piece of non-aesthetic, contextual information just like the grounds for interpretation well. as Biographical information isjust should of anartist, theregarding beconsidered immorality legitimate for and interpretive criticism theory, biographical information, especially Ifthesethe non-aesthetic art. features are considered legitimate grounds forimportant developing afuller, richer interpretive understanding of contextual information is seen valuable, as legitimate, valid, and of is frequently mentioned type This and historians. critics byart insight more or atruth just than another interpretive belief. In fact, oneIn fact, major and potentially threatening implication to my Further, the historical, social, and political context of anartwork 29 The Intentional Fallacy 30 Stance Volume 12 / April 2019 26 own anylonger.” merits “I believe itisimpossible for these photographs to beviewed on their He asked to have hisphotography exhibition taken down, claiming when he was accused of sexual misconduct byseveral of hisstudents. is precisely photographer what Nicholas Nixon regretfully recognized abuses denies them the of privilege a“pure” readingof their work. This by encouraging them our that to knowledge recognize of their immoral created the work. Myapproach further punishes the problematic artist while acknowledgingart the problematic nature of the person who However, the audience or patrons get to “keep” withthe or engage public lives. contend withwhen moral decisions making intheir private and nicholas-nixon-photography-show.html. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/12/arts/design/ica-boston-closes- Photography ShowEarly,” NewYork, lastmodifiedApril12,2018, Times Katharine Q.Seelye,“BostonMuseum ClosesNicholasNixon 26 Under myapproach, must artists thisiswhat composition theory. philosophyordinary language and investigate the intersection between studies and rhetoric where she can amaster’s incompositionpursuing graduating, Rosanna After on plans theory, and philosophy of language. aesthetics, and literary critical philosophical interests include College inElmhurst, Her Illinois. and philosophy major at Elmhurst Rosanna Sparacino isanEnglish ABOUT THEAUTHOR:

The Intentional Fallacy 31