works of art: “reading our feelings and reading the work are, in general, virtually inseparable processes.” Meanings of artworks are not always what the artist intended them to mean Knowing what an artist meant to mean when making a work of art can be a tremendous aid to understanding that work of art. Artists’ intents can play a significant role for interpreters who want to formulate meanings about artists’ works. It would be intellectually foolish to ignore artists’ words about their works when trying to interpret those works. Barrets book does not assert, however, that the work necessarily means what the artist wants it to mean. To believe that a work of art means what its maker meant it to mean is to adhere to what is known in criticism and aesthetics as an Intentionalist position of interpretation. There are many objections to intentionalism such as the “Intentionalist Fallacy” – it is very difficult, if not impossible to know what the artist's intentions were. One should remember that it is artworks we attempt to interpret, not artists. One should also remember that intention indicates ambition and not necessarily achievement. There are two types of Intentionalism: Actual Intentionalism and Hypothetical Intentionalism. Actual Intentionalism is the view that the meaning of a work of art is what its maker meant it to actually mean. Hypothetical Intentionalism is the view that the meaning of a work of art is what an ideal viewer surmises the artist’s intent to have been. In Actual Intentionalism, the artist must have successfully realised his or her intent in the work for it to be interpreted accurately. Conversely, in Hypothetical Intentionalism, the viewer is an ideal viewer and successfully interprets the work. Barret says: “the meaning of a work of art is not limited to the meaning the artist had in mind when making the work; it can mean more or less or something different than the artist intended the work to mean.” To rely on the artists’ intent for an interpretation of an artwork is to put oneself in a passive role as a viewer. Reliance on the artists’ intent unwisely removes the responsibility of interpretation from the viewer; it also robs the viewer of the joy of interpretive thinking and the rewards of the new insights it yields into the art and the world. The objects of interpretation are artworks, not artists In some conversations and