On Aug 19, 2009, at 9:23 AM, jeremy hunsinger wrote:
>> When you manage to operationalize someone's intent without other
>> narrative possibilities, I'll be interested to see it.
>>
>> So would I! Any Interpretation of an intent is a narrative! I can
>> only give you a conceptual model of how I assume, based on
>> knowledge of cognitive processes, an intent becomes operational in
>> someone's mind. I can not situate the model in their mind, hence it
>> is an interpretive stance that I take - one that helps me make
>> sense of whatever information they present to me.
>
> i don't deny the power of narrative here, but i don't think that
> excluding the descriptive power of intent or intention will hurt
> narratives of design. they might actually allow it much more
> freedom in freeing it from the authorial and artistic narratives.
Jeremy: Excluding intent from narratives of design disassociates them
from the needs, desires, feelings and social understandings that
motivate them. The catchy term "intentional fallacy" is a trope of
literary criticism denying discussion of authorial intent in order
to "objectively" interpret their products. Such "objective
interpretation" allows the critic to substitute their own values and
knowledge for that of the author. No wonder they like it! However, it
is no less an intentional interpretation than the author might reveal
if he/she chose to do so. Unfortunately, many just leave it to the
critics! I believe intentions should be made clear in order to assist
interpretation during human communication and designing. This
sometimes doesn't serve the purposes (subrosa intentions) of the
author, politician, artist, etc. This tends to problematic
interpretations removed from the generative situation and the actors
involved. Re your other comment: I can't imagine why you would not
want knowledge of whether something was created by a man or machine.
It would be key to how you interpret and understand it.
Chuck
|