Work and Object: The Artist's Sanction in Contemporary Art

Dissertation, Princeton University (2003)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Is an artwork simply identical to some physical object? While clearly not viable for art forms like literature and music, the view that artworks are physical objects is appealing for the singular visual arts , since it accords with our intuitions about the nature of visual artworks. A traditional challenge to the view holds that physical objects cannot possess representational properties, and thus visual artworks, most of which do have such properties, cannot be identical to physical objects. In chapter 1 I consider four formulations of this challenge and show that each is readily defeated once we recognize the confusion that underlies it. Arthur Danto has suggested that artworks cannot be physical objects, since two objects with the same physical features might correspond to very different artworks. Danto holds that only interpretation can account for the differences between the works, and thus that artworks are constituted by Interpretation. In chapter 2 I argue that Danto is wrong to claim that viewers' intepretations constitute artworks. To make sense of the fact that interpretation is subject to norms of adequacy, we must hold that the artwork is the object, not the product, of interpretation. A consequence is that a stage of epistemic labor, namely apprehension of the artwork, is required prior to interpretation. In chapter 3, I discuss the process of apprehension and advance a positive view according to which the nature of the artwork Is established by the artist's sanction. The artist creates sanctions through her publicly accessible actions and communications, such as the act of making a physical object with particular features, the presentation of an artist statement to accompany the object, correspondence with curators, and so forth. Through the presentation of a variety of real and hypothetical examples of contemporary artworks, I argue that only the artist's sanction can account for the nature and characteristics of particular works. Moreover, the notion of the artist's sanction is applicable to both contemporary and historical artworks, and helps to bridge the apparent gap between them

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,386

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

The Interpretation, Function, and Metaphysics of Works of Art.Strefan Edward Fauble - 2000 - Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley
Andy Warhol and New Realism.Michael Golec - 2003 - Dissertation, Northwestern University
Destroying Artworks.Marcus Rossberg - 2013 - In Christy Mag Uidhir (ed.), Art & Abstract Objects. Oxford University Press.
What Intentionality Is Like.Keith Lehrer - 2011 - Acta Analytica 26 (1):3-14.
The Abstractness of Artworks and Its Implications for Aesthetics.John Dilworth - 2008 - Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 66 (4):341-353.
Are All Multiples the Same? The Problematic Nature of the Limited Edition.K. E. Gover - 2015 - Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 73 (1):69-80.
Intention, Interpretation, and Truth.Raja Fouad Halwani - 1996 - Dissertation, Syracuse University

Analytics

Added to PP
2015-02-04

Downloads
22 (#692,982)

6 months
10 (#255,509)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Sherri Irvin
University of Oklahoma

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references