Weitz reconsidered: A clearer view of why theories of art fail

British Journal of Aesthetics 38 (1):33-46 (1998)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This article has no associated abstract. (fix it)

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,349

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

Mr. Weitz and the definition of art.Joseph Margolis - 1958 - Philosophical Studies 9 (5-6):88 - 95.
The aesthetic theories of Roger Fry reconsidered.David G. Taylor - 1977 - Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 36 (1):63-72.
What Scientific Theories Could Not Be.Hans Halvorson - 2012 - Philosophy of Science 79 (2):183-206.
Conceptual Art Is Not What It Seems.Dominic McIver Lopes - 2007 - In Peter Goldie & Elisabeth Schellekens (eds.), Philosophy and Conceptual Art. Oxford University Press.
Art: Who needs it?Morris Weitz - 1976 - Journal of Aesthetic Education 10 (January):19-27.
Spacetime theory as physical geometry.Robert Disalle - 1995 - Erkenntnis 42 (3):317-337.
Does art tell the truth?Morris Weitz - 1942 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 3 (3):338-348.
The Intentional-Attributive Definition of Art.Alex Aliyev - 2009 - Consciousness, Literature and the Arts 10 (2).

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
47 (#329,840)

6 months
3 (#1,023,809)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Citations of this work

Margaret Macdonald on the Definition of Art.Daniel Whiting - 2022 - British Journal for the History of Philosophy 30 (6):1074-1095.
Justifying the Arts: The Value of Illuminating Failures.Michelle Forrest - 2011 - Journal of Philosophy of Education 45 (1):59-73.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references