Intentionality in Art

“The life of a soul does not consist in the contemplation of one consistent world but in the painful task of unifying . . . jarring and incompatible ones, and passing, when possible, from two or more discordant viewpoints to higher ones which shall somehow include and transmute them.” 

― T.S. Eliot, Knowledge and Experience in the Philosophy of F.H. Bradley 

The artist is credited with the success of a work of art, but the extent of their responsibility for that success remains open to question. They are responsible for what they consciously choose; subject matter, composition, and style. But there are also aesthetic factors like the intrinsic characteristics of art mediums (for example in the analysis of Old Persian poetry and its metrical schemes) and the ways the art product is received and interpreted by the audience that go beyond the artist's original intention. Mukarovsky says that art is the ultimate intentional creation because an artist considers all the aspects of the work as she tries to achieve her aim. However, unintentional elements enhance a work of art also. Art may be the most intentional creation (more than practical creation), however it is not completely intentional. 

Some objects are created with a clear utilitarian use, and their form is determined by functionality rather than artistic intent. Examples include tools, furniture, pottery, clothing, and architecture. While initially valued for their functionality, these objects can later be appreciated for their aesthetic qualities, showing that a shift in perspective can occur over time. The fact that a practical object can later be appreciated as an art object, that it in effect becomes a work of art, highlights the importance of the audience's reception. The audience is part creator. Mukarovsky argues that the success or meaning of an object, whether it was created for practical use or as a work of art, cannot rely solely on the artist’s intention. The audience plays a role in shaping the object’s significance. According to Mukarovsky, meaning is not fixed but evolves through the interaction between the object and its viewers, who bring their own interpretations and cultural context to the work. This dynamic relationship between artist, object, and audience underscores that artistic value is not solely determined by the creator’s original intent. 

What about the unintentional elements that arise from within the artist’s own creative process, rather than external influences like tradition or function? Mukarovsky introduces the complex concept of the subconscious. The way I understand the subconscious in 2024 may differ from how it was understood in 1978, when Mukarovsky was writing. Today, the idea of the subconscious has become part of mainstream culture. Therapy, particularly talk therapy, is now widely accepted, and one of the silver linings of the pandemic has been the rise of accessible online therapy. Early in the reading the author refers to a historical interest in “the psychic process accompanying creation” (Mukarovsky 89). This part of the reading is what interests me most as it pertains to my own work, especially a historical timeline in Western thinking. It raises questions about how the unintentional is viewed in different parts of the world at different times. 

Mukarovsky introduces this idea early in his essay: 

“it is- and has been from ancient times-strikingly apparent to the more careful observer much in the work of art as a whole and in art in general which defies intentionality” (Mukarovsky 89) 

Starting with Plato’s quote in the Phaedrus, likely written around 370 BCE, the author refers to the “madness of the Muses”. The use of the word "madness" implies that good creative work often requires a sense of divine influence, emotional intensity, a defiance of pure rationality, and, at times, an association to mental health struggles. 

Medieval thinkers were not concerned with the subconscious in art because they “regarded the artist only as an imitator of the beauty of divine creation” (Mukarovsky 90). As H. H. Glunz explains, “God alone is the true Creator,” and the artist’s work “is only a forgery of nature.” This perspective gave rise to terms like ars adulterina (“deceptive or counterfeit art”) and ars moecha (“adulterous or unfaithful art”). In the medieval world an artist was not an individual, their inner worlds of no importance compared to God. 

During the Renaissance, rationality reigned supreme, skilled and intentional craft was revered, making unintentionality its antithesis. They wanted to “elevate” art to the level of science, to “compete” with science. Yet still the author thinks it’s worth noting that there is at least a reference to the unintentional during this time. 

It was not until the Enlightenment in the 18th century that the idea emerged that true artistic genius involves an element of unexplainable, spontaneous creativity. Emmanuel Kant distinguished between ordinary skill and genius, the latter producing art beyond conscious understanding, linked to the sublime and the imagination. (Haworth). 

Ideas around the unintentional in art slowly gain significance over time. The Romantics placed a high value on the idea of inspiration and the unpredictability of the creative act. I’m thinking of Samuel Coleridge’s Rime of the Ancient Mariner written in a fever dream and J.M.W. Turner painting from the mast of a ship during a storm to directly experience the sublime chaos of nature. 

I would like to do more research on the flow of unintentional aspects within the artist, tracing it from the Romantics, to Sigmund Freud and The Interpretation of Dreams, Andre Breton and the Surrealists with their automatic writing and dream logic, to Modernism and Postmodernism. I have a strong personal connection to T.S. Eliot’s The Four Quartets. It could

potentially be the spring board for some new work as it has held such a long place in my autobiography and I might need to get it out. I want to examine how Eliot navigates time and memory. 

"Time past and time future 

What might have been and what has been 

Point to one end, which is always present." 

(Burnt Norton, The Four Quartets, T.S. Eliot) 

Haworth, Michael. “Genius Is What Happens: Derrida and Kant on Genius, Rule-Following and the Event.” The British Journal of Aesthetics, vol. 54, no. 3, July 2014, pp. 323–337. Oxford Academic, https://academic.oup.com/bjaesthetics/article/54/3/323/137805. 

Jan Mukarovsky, “Intentionality and Unintentionality in Art,” Structure, Sign, and Function: Selected Essays by Jan Mukarovsky, translated by John Burbank and Peter Steiner, Yale University Press, 1978, pp. 89–128.