Intention Versus Anti-Intention
Concept
A point of discussion in art analysis is whether or not it is important to take into account an artist's intention. This is a deep problem that has its roots in philosophy. There is no answer here, just food for thought. Neither approach is "correct", as the dominance of one opinion over the other waxes and wanes over time. As an artist, you can decide on what is right for you, but your opinion should not be set in stone, or plaster for that matter, until you have learned about the opposing arguments.
Over the course of your artistic life, your opinions on intention/anti-intention are free to change and evolve. It is healthy to argue either point during critique of your and others' works. Here are some scholarly articles on the subject:
https://academic.oup.com/book/2073?login=false Links to an external site.
https://iep.utm.edu/art-and-interpretation/ Links to an external site.
Here is an example
Should revelations about Degas' paintings of ballerinas influence your perspective about the works themselves? Or should the paintings be viewed completely independently as objects, open to your own interpretation? When I learned the information below, my opinion of the artist and his work did radically change.
My current opinion
At this point in my artistic life, I lean towards my work having an intended meaning. This has not always been the case, as many of my earlier works simply existed. As an artist, I have often become fully immersed in my own world, philosophy, and minutia. This depth of personal exploration may or may not relate to anyone else; it is art for art sake.
Part of my current motivation towards intention is a rejection of "alternative truths", "flat earth philosophy" (people who do not believe any evidence that is not discovered directly by their own senses), and groups who deny scientific evidence in general. These are serious matters that affect the health of the planet, and do not belong in an academic setting, government institution, or in a healthy society.
The "good old days" is a common trope, which can mean something quite the opposite. For many this philosophy often means when things were less equitable, more ignorant, and better for selected groups only. When I was a kid, I used to think it would have been nice to grow up in the 1950s. My wife often wanted to be a part of the '60s. My kids have been nostalgic for the '70's and '80's. But none of these times were "better" for everyone. My point is that to ignore history or to not take a stand on important subjects is equivalent to causing bad things to happen.
Conclusion
As an artist, as long as you are honest and can both give and take critique, it doesn't matter where you lie on the spectrum of intention/anti-intention in relation to your own work. It will be a point of topic no matter your philosophy.