A & P: Response to Shelby's Post on the Intro 9/18/09

In response to the introduction, Shelby posed the question; does representation, like the intentionality thesis, play a role in defining art as art and is it necessary for a work of art to represent something?

Representation and the intentionality thesis go hand in hand when attempting to define art. If an artist is intending to make an artwork, the artwork must represent something. When I think of this question I think of what "nothing" would be. Have you ever tried to think of nothing? It is hard to do because like art the concept of nothingness has yet to be defined. By our nature, we seek to see representation of something in everything so, I would assume that if and when we are intending to make art we would also intend to have it represent something. However, depending on the artist and/or observer, an artwork can be said to represent nothing according to the intentionality thesis. Hence, the intentionality thesis and representation determine each other's role in defining art and that sets us back from truly defining art.