Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T04:02:09.694Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Groundrules in the Philosophy of Art

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 January 2009

Nick Zangwill
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

What are the groundrules in the philosophy of art? What criteria of adequacy should we use for assessing theories of art?

Type
Articles
Information
Philosophy , Volume 70 , Issue 274 , October 1995 , pp. 533 - 544
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Philosophy 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Some prominent examples of contemporary aestheticians who are motivated by extensional adequacy are the following. George, Dickie, Art and the Aesthetic (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1974),Google ScholarThe Art Circle (New York; Haven, 1984)Google Scholar. Arthur Danto, ‘The Artworld’, Journal of Philosophy, 1964, The Transfiguration of the Commonplace (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1981).Google ScholarJerrold Levinson, Music, Art, and Metaphysics (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1990).Google Scholar

2 It is presumably not the case that the content of propositional attitudes concerning works of art is fixed by our causal interactions with works of art; for as physical things, there is nothing significant in common between them. The case will not be like our thought about natural kinds.

3 See his Essays on Actions and Events (Oxford: Clarendon, 1980), and Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation (Oxford: Clarendon, 1982)Google Scholar

4 See Roger, Scruton, The Aesthetic Understanding (London: Methuen, 1983), chapter 1.Google Scholar

5 In my ‘Doughnuts and Dickie’ (Ratio, 1994) I argue that Dickie′s institutional theory fails to explain our interest in art.Google Scholar

6 I expound and defend a theory of art which appeals to aesthetic properties in ‘The Creative Theory of Art’, American Philosophical Quarterly, 1995.

7 For example, George, Dickie, Aesthetics, pp. 98–99.Google Scholar

8 Perhaps there is something to be said for the appeal to paradigms in the philosophy of art.

9 I am grateful for helpful comments from Simon Evnine, Jerry Levinson, and the editor. A version of this paper was given as a talk at the Open University summer school.