Daniel O. Nathan

This essay is a discussion and critical analysis of Nick Zangwill's theory of art. Zangwill's theory makes aesthetic intention (or "aesthetic insight") central to the status of art in various articles and in his book, Aesthetic Creation (OUP, 2007). The present essay focuses on the analysis found in his book and in particular whether Zangwill's theory adequately addresses the nature of avant-garde works of art. In the end, I argue that Zangwill's theory is both too narrow and too broad to fully succeed as an account of the full sweep of artistic endeavors.

I argue that intentionalism in aesthetics and in legal interpretation is vulnerable to a different sort of criticism than is found in the voluminous literature on the topic. Specifically, a kind of paradox arises for the intentionalist out of recognition of a second-order intention embedded in the social practices that characterize both art and law. The paper shows how this second-order intention manifests itself in each of the two enterprises, and argues that its presence entails the overriding centrality of the public text, and hence a rejection of the interpretive stance distinctive of intentionalism itself.

This essay considers the reliability and proper role of authorial intention in the interpretation of figurative language and argues that, even in cases of metaphor and irony, the meaning of a text must remain logically independent of the intent of its historical author. Irony and metaphor have been broadly considered to be the most problematic cases for the anti-intentionalist approach to interpretation. The arguments in this essay address standard intentionalist arguments and, in the end, defend a sort of hypothetical intentionalism that is, in all significant respects, anti-intentionalist.