Welcome to the Intentism blog! Please feel free to add your thoughts!
|Posted by Vittorio on June 7, 2015 at 2:55 PM||comments (0)|
Intentism will begin to track down the best made and most thought-provoking videos on the above topics from Youtube. Intentism is not endorsing any of the posted opinions.
|Posted by Vittorio Pelosi on June 12, 2013 at 1:55 PM||comments (0)|
Happenstance Gallery is once again organising an exhibition of art works rejected by the Royal Academy Summer Exhibition.
Salon des Refusés 2013 - curated by Happenstance Gallery
12-18 Hoxton Street, N1 6NG London (entrance on Drysdale Street)
Thw exhibition includes both an artist bio. and statement concerning the exhibited piece. These two items are of course great interest to Intentists as we seek to restore both the artist and his of her intention to their rightful place.
The following is taken from their Facebook page:
Following the tradition of the 19th century Parisian Salon des Refusés, when Napoleon allowed rejected works to be exhibited alongside those accepted ones after artists protested the Salon jury’s rejection of 3000 works, Happenstance Gallery organises an exhibition of paintings, graphic and mixed media works, photographs and prints rejected by the Royal Academy Summer Exhibition.
Unlike our predecessors, we are not protesting, but helping. We respect the Royal Academicians’ judgement and understand that exhibiting at the RA Summer Exhibition is a great honour and privilege, and that the RA walls are limited and a lot of good artwork has to be rejected. We want those works to still be on show and let the public judge which ones they like most of all, independent from experts’ decision. Every visitor to the exhibition will be asked to vote for three favourite pieces.
“Let’s think together about what art is, what its value is estimated by and whether it should be estimated at all. Let’s listen to what our deepest feelings are telling us, which artwork appeals to us and maybe we’ll discover new talents worthy of worldwide fame and appreciation, gems like Manet and Whistler, whose work would otherwise have vanished inside dusty attics or be lost to posterity.”
For this reason we’ve located the exhibition in Shoreditch - the home of contemporary emerging and established artists and the bravest art.
Do you want to meet the artists?
Sign up for the opening night guest list here or by emailing [email protected].
Private View: Tuesday 11 June 2013, 6:30pm
Wednesday 12 June - 12:00-9pm
Thursday 13 June - 12:00-9pm
Friday 14 June - 12:00-4pm
HOW TO GET THERE:
Underground - Old St
Overground: Hoxton, Shoreditch High St
Buses: 21, 76, 67, 141, 149, 242, 243, 271, 394
|Posted by Vittorio Pelosi on October 22, 2012 at 2:50 PM||comments (2)|
Vladimir Umanets, founder of the art movement Yellowism 'defaced' one ofRothko's Seagram murals earlier this month. Mr Umanets compared himself withDuchamp and said that "art allows us to take what someone's done and put anew message on it."
His act has mostly provoked anger in the art community- perhaps rightly so.However, on what do we base our consternation?
Contemporary art theory espouses ideas grounded in the Death Theses of Foucaultand Barthes. In essence a work's author has no bearing on its meaning.Moreover, Gadamer following Heidegger, spoke of the 'effective history of thework'- that a work has constantly changing meanings over different times, andgenerations etc. Effectively, as Barthes put it- we have a birth of the viewer-meaning resides here.
From this foundation, where do art critics base their anger? The work is not'owned' by Rothko.On what basis do say when a work is finished? It is no longerthe artist's decision. Perhaps Umanets was completing it. If art criticswere upset solely on the basis of vandalism and ownership- in the same leagueas graffitti on a privtae building's wall, then their response would beappropriate. However, the uproar is based on the work being somethingontologically different- it's a "Rothko."
How will restorers clean it? By matching it to how Rothko originally leftit.
In practice the artist is alive and well and his or her intentions domatter.
|Posted by Ciacco on July 30, 2012 at 4:10 PM||comments (1)|
The new and contemporary views of health care encompass three principal ideas: (1) health care must be patient-centered - not aiming at pathology or a physio-anatomical system, but centered on the patient's needs and medical history; (2) health care must be evidence-based - not relying on this or that piece of evidence, but on the consensus of the best available evidence that emerges following a systematic hypothesis-process of research synthesis; and (3) health care must be focused on effectiveness - meaning to say, cost-effectiveness, benefit-effectiveness and risk reduction-effectiveness. Thus, cost-effective patient-centered evidence-based health care is the challenging new frontier of obtaining the best available evidence that specifically targets a patient's needs, and of applying it in specific clinical settings.
To identify the patient's needs, we rely on translational research, which, by definition, goes from the patient's biopsy to the laboratory for the identification of the underlining molecular pathology, and back to the patient for treatment. Once identified, the patient's needs dictate the search of the best available evidence, which, when utilized in specific clinical settings, signifies translational effectiveness.
In brief, translational research and translational effectiveness are two sides of the same coin, two complementary dimensions of the same scientific domain: translational science. Translational science, like any other science, is in pursuit of its own philosophy of science. As any other science, translational science rests on reason and logic. Logic, like science evolves - from the aristotelian classical logic, to hegelian dialectical logic, to Pierce's inductive-deductive-abductive logic (abduction referring to the transaction from the best possible information to the optimal interpretation and explanation), to the modern and postmodern trialectical logic.
Whereas trialectical logic invokes dynamic denominalization, a rather random process of "reframing", we submit here that philosophy in our XXI Century will evolve logic to an abductive trialectic process. We propose that, particularly in the context of translational science where the process of research is engaged with the specific intent of obtaining the best available evidence for the most effective patient-centered intervention, the directionality of the logic process cannot be left random: it is directed by the clear intent stated above.
Taken together, these lines of thought lead us to conclude that the new logic of the new translational science in this the beginning of our new millennium must be an "intentist trialectics", a trialectic with the fourth dimension of "intent", a tetralectic logic of intentism.
|Posted by Rachel on May 3, 2012 at 4:25 AM||comments (2)|
Brighton based artist jamie McCartney has his first London solo show coming up next week and part of it is The controversial Great Wall of Vagina – a 9-metre wall featuring individual plaster cast panels taken from 400 different women’s most intimate parts.
A Private View will take place on 8th May at Hay Hill Gallery, London.
I would be interested to hear your thoughts.
|Posted by Sam Christie on January 22, 2012 at 5:00 PM||comments (1)|
Recently, while watching a film, a friend of mine leant over and whispered into my ear, 'this film is so ugly'. I was surprised, not because of the impromptu interruption, but because the particular film we were watching was a beautifully shot landscape film. It was the kind of film that can usually do no wrong. It turned out we were both thinking along similar lines.
They were similar but different lines though. I thought the filmmaker, in this case making a work about a landscape, a rural community, had been wrong to exclude the voices of those who worked the land. He favoured instead a poetic neo-realist lingering long shot instead of showing what the landscape contained. Almost everyone I knew, some of them film theorists, loved this film, seduced by the poetic pace, the painterly framing, but not my friend; she saw it as ugly. When quizzed she explained that it looked like an advert, that it looked as though the filmmaker had never been there, had never really felt the place for what it was. She saw the film as an exercise in technique, nothing more. We can, I believe, connect these thoughts by asking the simple question, ‘what was the filmmaker’s intention?’ If we knew his intention we could begin to appreciate the work for what it actually is.
Here’s my theory, and this is the theory of someone who makes films and faces all the challenges that are associated with that. This filmmaker, who lives in a city, wanted to make a film akin to the films of those he admires. My sense is that he’d watched the work of Raymond Depardon or perhaps Michelangelo Frammartino, no matter, he liked a style, he liked what rural landscapes could do when framed. Maybe he saw how easy it was to create beauty from landscapes like the one he filmed. But of course these landscapes, pretty to the eye, contain just the same level of complexity as you’ll find in the city. Far from finding malleable characters pleased to appear on the flickering screen, he found survivors, people who don’t take to being pushed about. My sense is he found resistance as an outsider and people declined to be filmed or interviewed. Because of this we don’t see the wonderful interviews of Depardon; instead we get long shots of trees. Far from being a conceptual choice, it was a pragmatic reality, an awkward improvisation.
I can’t prove it of course. It’s just a hunch and will remain so forever not least because this filmmaker declined to walk the reflexive walk. There was just no evidence of him in the film at all. My friend was right I think, he’d made a ‘painting by numbers’, quasi neo realist advert for himself as a filmmaker. Does it matter? Well to me yes I think it does,because filmmakers hold our attention in a way that comes close to subliminal and films, despite all theory to the contrary, present the pro filmic event as real. If this is the case the filmmaker has a responsibility, and a big one too. How many people left the cinema after that film thinking the landscape in question was nothing but wobbling trees, time lapsed lakes and people with one foot in the grave? The film was a fetish of rural life from the viewpoint of the city.
A priori intention matters. It is one of many tools that we, as the audience, can employ to unpack the work; to work out what’s really going on. Filmmakers are in an extraordinarily privileged position when screening a film; they’re speaking directly to us, many of us, who are assembled to listen. If the message in a film gets through, it can stay with us for ever and in some cases that message can be so coded by the nuances of the filmmakers life and background that in order to understand a piece of work we need to know who they are. Next time you go to a film, if you don't do this already, ask, "Who is talking to me and what are they saying?" That should neatly give the answer to the next question, "Why are they saying it?"
|Posted by Sydney Heighington on September 30, 2011 at 9:15 AM||comments (1)|
Language aside, I think the person that wrote this has the right ammount of consideration for the author.
|Posted by Vittorio Pelosi on April 6, 2011 at 3:51 PM||comments (0)|
Vittorio Pelosi has been in conversation with translator Samantha Christie regarding how intentionality might influence translation theories.
To read the conversation please click on 'Reading' above and then 'Interviews.'
You can also discuss the conversation either on the forums page, or on 'Literary Translation at UEA':
|Posted by Vittorio Pelosi on February 14, 2011 at 10:04 AM||comments (0)|
Thanks to Professor Paisley Livingston we have this amusing cartoon. Sometimes interpreting a text without regard to intention can cause miscommunication... !
|Posted by Sydney Heighington on January 22, 2011 at 8:03 PM||comments (2)|
A constructive and enjoyable day. Myself, Vittorio, Paisley and James met this evening for a chance to catch up and chat to eachother about what we are achieving of late and how we intend to progress. An enjoyable evening fulll of fruitful discussion and a great understanding of what we believe in. A big thankyou to Paisley for makiong the effort to meet with us coming all the way from Hong Kong. We hope to see more of eachother in the future.