The Abstractness of Artworks and Its Implications for Aesthetics
Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 66 (4):341 - 353 (2008)
| Abstract | Artworks have at least some necessary content properties, as do abstract entities such as propositions. But no concrete item, whether an object, event, process etc., could have any necessary content property. So no artwork could be identical with a concrete item. Hence artworks must be abstract. I also argue that artworks are only contingently connected with concrete items, just as propositions are only contingently linked to their linguistic tokens. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,679 |
| External links |
  Try with proxy. |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesJohn Dilworth (2008). The Propositional Challenge to Aesthetics. British Journal of Aesthetics 48 (2):115-144.
H. J. Pratt (2012). Categories and Comparisons of Artworks. British Journal of Aesthetics 52 (1):45-59.
James Shelley (2003). The Problem of Non-Perceptual Art. British Journal of Aesthetics 43 (4):363-378.
John Dilworth (2003). Pictorial Orientation Matters. British Journal of Aesthetics 43 (1):39-56.
John Dilworth (2005). The Double Content of Art. Prometheus Books.
John Dilworth (2007). In Support of Content Theories of Art. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 85 (1):19 – 39.
C. Tillman (2011). Musical Materialism. British Journal of Aesthetics 51 (1):13-29.
Nicolas de Warren (2007). Off the Beaten Path: The Artworks of Andrew Goldsworthy. Environmental Philosophy 4 (1-2):29-48.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-05-14Total downloads53 ( #19,364 of 549,088 )Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #25,722 of 549,088 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
