In the article “Pattern of Intention,” Michael Baxandall discusses the historical understanding of works of art: how I don’t see that as a main part of the thesis any description of art is really a description of one’s concept about what is seen and to what extent we can test and evaluate a historical interpretation of a picture. Analyzing in detail paintings by Chardin, and Piero della Francesca, Baxandall shows how this inferential criticism sharpens our legitimate satisfaction in the art works themselves. I am not sure that he is saying that it sharpens or satisfaction rather than a analysis of what already exists.
In the the article, the author tried to show us how it seems impossible to examine an image without making a comparison: whether to another image, to the natural world, or to a sensational memory. Good but I think he talks about comparison, etc. in the 3rd section so not just in the beginning Michael Baxandall establishes images as an exchange or barter between the artist and the viewer, both of whom exist as part of the larger historical context of the world. I agree that as we experience the work of art or the art of life primarily through our vision, so we are comparing, learning and aiming towards understanding. I realized that in a similar manner, the artist also accepts his Charge with the intent provided by his world, and through the process of making, informs the viewer of the comparisons necessary to arrive at the image: an exchange between seeing and understanding, the seer and the seen.I am not clear about this..I do not see much emphasis on the intention of the artists Baxandall uses of examples of ideas outside of the art realm to inform our understanding–and thereby appreciation of– art objects. I noticed that Baxandall, tried to expand the view to include context outside of the art realm that influenced the art-making, placing the responsibility of comparison upon the viewer to envision the cause of the work of art. I