Daniel Nathan argues that there is a paradox in Intentionalism. His argument can be summarized as follows:
Necessarily, if an artwork is produced for the public,then it is produced with a secondary intention that any primary intention relevant to the work’s meaning must be accessible in the work itself.
Artworks are produced for the public.
. ∴ They are produced with a secondary intention that any primary intention relevant to the work’s meaning must be accessible in the work itself.
First, is this paradoxical? Second, is this a problem for Intentionalism?
W. K. Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley, Anti-Intentionalists