according to the intentional fallacy why should we not think about an artist intentions when we went to understand their work??

THE CLAIM of the author's "intention" upon the critic's judgment has been challenged in a number of recent discussions, notably in the debate entitled The Personal Heresy, between Professors Lewis and Tillyard. But it seems doubtful if this claim and most of its romantic corollaries are as yet subject to any widespread questioning. The present writers, in a short article entitled "Intention" for a Dictionary1 of literary criticism, raised the issue but were unable to pursue its implications at any length. We argued that the design or intention of the author is neither available nor desirable as a standard for judging the success of a work of literary art, and it seems to us that this is a principle which goes deep into some differences in the history of critical attitudes. It is a principle which accepted or rejected points to the polar opposites of classical "imitation" and romantic expression. It entails many specific truths about inspiration, authenticity, biography, literary history and scholarship, and about some trends of contemporary poetry, especially its allusiveness. There is hardly a problem of literary criticism in which the critic's approach will not be qualified by his view of "intention."

Explanation:

this musical excerpt is an example of piano volume. (true) !

i got this answer from a really friend, and it was right.

hope this you like it me and a special to that dude!

artists need to create a realistic interpretation so that people in general can relate to the artwork. for a common people, an artist's impression gets increased only if he can create something which would look realistic. an abstract is difficult for a common people to understand whereas if a person can draw a girl with simple pencil sketch and if that looks like a real figure then the latter will be praised more than the former.