1. © Michael Lacewing How can art express emotion? Michael Lacewing enquiries@alevelphilosophy.co.uk

2. Schedoni’s The Holy Family with the Virgin teaching the Child to Read (c. 1615)

3. Applying psychological terms to artworks A painting can’t literally be calm, content, intimate, sad… Are we describing what the painting is of, e.g. content, intimate people?

4. Jan Steen The Effects of Intemperance (1663-5)

5. Metaphor ‘A sad painting’ is a metaphor; it doesn’t apply literally But this doesn’t explain how art expresses emotion –‘Their marriage has broken down’; ‘he’s a rat’ - application of metaphor without perceptual experience –‘sad painting’ relates to how we experience it

6. Audience emotion Suggestion: a ‘sad’ painting is a painting that arouses sadness Obj.: a painting can arouse sadness without expressing sadness –E.g. someone might feel sad looking at Schedoni because it reminds them that they don’t have an intimate family –This doesn’t mean the painting is a sad painting - it isn’t

7. Artist emotion A sad painting expresses the artist’s sadness Objection: this limits what an artist can paint to what she or he feels Better: a sad painting is one that the artist intends to evoke sadness in the audience A painting is experienced ‘correctly’ when the audience feels or at least understands the emotion the artist intended to arouse

8. Picasso The Three Dancers (1925)

9. Intention ‘Intention’ here is broad, i.e. all psychological states that bring the artist to make the painting just as it is –The artist does not have to be conscious of their intention –Their intention may evolve with the artwork At some point, the artist accepts that the work is as it should be

10. Leonardo da Vinci The Virgin of the Rocks (c. 1491- 1508)

11. Rothko Red on Maroon (1959)

12. The intentional fallacy We cannot refer to the artist’s intention or state of mind in interpreting the artwork –The state of mind is private - we cannot infer from the artwork –We should concentrate on the artwork, not the artist’s state of mind We can and should value the artwork on the basis of the artwork and its merits alone, not the psychological conditions of its creation

13. Reply Many psychological descriptions of the artwork refer also to the mind of the artist, e.g. mature, perceptive, pretentious, courageous –To say an artwork is pretentious is not to say that the artist is a pretentious person, but in this artwork, on this occasion, they have displayed pretention The distinction to observe is not between artwork and artist’s mind, but those psychological qualities expressed in the artwork and those qualities of the artist as a person generally. –An artist can be perceptive in their work, but a mess in their life.

14. Rembrandt, Self-portrait at the age of 63 (1669)

15. Conclusion The intentional fallacy is not a fallacy - we can respond to and value art for what the artist expresses through the artwork To interpret an artwork may require some understanding of the artist’s life, and the circumstances in which the artwork was created. –However, this should not absolutely limit or guide interpretation. The only evidence that the artist was, e.g perceptive, could be in their art.