Final answer:
Wimsatt and Beardsley posited that an audience's enjoyment or rejection of art is influenced by their sense of form and not by the artist's intentions, a view known as the intentional fallacy. Immanuel Kant also argued that the aesthetic experience of beauty is a subjective, common human truth, suggesting a collective basis for beauty in art.
Step-by-step explanation:
It was argued by literary theorist William Kurtz Wimsatt and philosopher of art Monroe Beardsley that an audience's interpretation of a work of art is not dependent on the artist's intention, famously termed the intentional fallacy. They suggested that art could be described, interpreted, and evaluated without reference to the artist's intentions which may not be known or could be misinterpreted. This concept implies that the audience's sense of form leads them to either enjoy or reject a work of art based on their own experiences and perceptions.
Moreover, the debate about what determines a work of art's meaning—whether it's the audience, art historians, or the artist's intention—is further explored through different lenses. Immanuel Kant addressed the concept of beauty and art by considering the aesthetic experience to be a subjective judgment yet a common human truth, suggesting a collective agreement on what may be considered beautiful.