Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorPenner, Nina
dc.date.accessioned2020-07-15T18:14:06Z
dc.date.available2020-07-15T18:14:06Z
dc.date.issued2018
dc.identifier.citationMusic and Letters, 2018, Vol.99 (3), p.448-469en_US
dc.identifier.issn1477-4631
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10464/14865
dc.description.abstractThe ‘intentional fallacy’ and pronouncements of the ‘death of the author’ supported the hermeneutical flights of fancy that characterized the ‘New Musicology’ of the 1980s and early 1990s, but mesh less well with more recent New-Historicist impulses. Anti-intentionalism is motivated by a belief in the autonomy of art, a belief most musicologists today reject. Our interest in composers’ working documents and correspondence also conflicts with antiintentionalist methodologies. Due to the diversity of current musicology, no one stance towards interpretation is going to describe all interpretative activities in our field. Nevertheless, for those interested in understanding musical works and performances as the products of human endeavour, I argue that moderate actual intentionalism is the theory that best describes practices directed towards this aim. Its chief advocates—Paisley Livingston, Robert Stecker, and Noël Carroll—are philosophers in the analytic tradition. This article, thus, provides a glimpse of what musicology might gain from taking a greater interest in work in this field.en_US
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherOxford University Pressen_US
dc.subjectIntention (Logic)en_US
dc.subjectMusicologyen_US
dc.subjectPhilosophyen_US
dc.subjectIntentionalismen_US
dc.titleIntentions in Theory and Practiceen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1093/ml/gcy048
refterms.dateFOA2021-08-18T01:47:22Z


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
Penner-Intentions-in-Theory-an ...
Size:
305.2Kb
Format:
PDF
Description:
Main article

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record