Why do some critics focus on the artwork rather than the artist’s private intentions?

In art and literary criticism, the focus on the artwork itself rather than the artist’s private intentions is often a deliberate methodological choice. This approach seeks to avoid the intentional fallacy, a term describing the error of assuming that an artist’s stated purpose or mental state at the time of creation provides the only correct interpretation of the work.1

Critics who prioritize the object over the artist’s biography or psychology often do so for the following reasons:

• Autonomy of the Work: Formalist critics, such as Clement Greenberg, argued that a work of art should be viewed as a self-sufficient, autonomous entity. From this perspective, the value of art lies in its material qualities—such as form, color, and composition—rather than in anecdotal or literary content.2
• Focus on Aesthetic Experience: By isolating the work from the artist's private life, critics aim to engage with the art as a "pure" aesthetic experience. This allows the viewer to focus on the work's internal structure and "significant form," treating it as an independent unit of meaning.23
• Avoiding Speculation: Relying on an artist's intentions forces a critic to act as a psychologist or cultural historian, speculating on the artist's mental state. Focusing on the work itself allows for an "immanent analysis" that remains grounded in the tangible evidence provided by the art object.134

While this focus on the object provides a rigorous way to analyze material particularity, some scholars argue that it can overlook the broader historical, social, and psychological contexts that inform the creative process.2