David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
British Journal of Aesthetics 47 (3):280-297 (2007)
Peter Kivy has maintained that the Wittgensteinian account of ‘art’ ‘is not a going concern’ and that ‘the traditional task of defining the work of art is back in fashion, with a vengeance’. This is true, in large part, because of the turn towards relational definitions of ‘art’ taken by philosophers in the 1960s; a move that is widely believed to have countered the Wittgensteinian charge that ‘art’ is an open concept and which gave rise to a ‘New Wave’ in aesthetic theorizing. So successful has this New Wave been that today the philosophy of art is awash with relational definitions, which are increasingly characterized by their technical sophistication and logical complexity. The aim of this essay is to oppose this trend; to demonstrate that relationalist definitions cannot avoid the problems which provided the impetus for the Wittgensteinian view and to show that the New Wavers cannot explain why anyone would want the definitions which they are offering, irrespective of their success or failure. I will also explore, in detail, the uses, as well as the limitations, of the Wittgensteinian approach to the concept of art.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Michael Storck (2010). The Meaning of the Word Art. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 84:263-273.
Haig Khatchadourian (1969). Family Resemblances and the Classification of Works of Art. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 28 (1):79-90.
Leslie Cunliffe (2006). A Wittgensteinian Approach to Discerning the Meaning of Works of Art in the Practice of Critical and Contextual Studies in Secondary Art Education. Journal of Aesthetic Education 40 (1):65-78.
Dominic McIver Lopes (2007). Conceptual Art is Not What It Seems. In Peter Goldie & Elisabeth Schellekens (eds.), Philosophy and Conceptual Art. Oxford University Press
Christy Mag Uidhir & P. D. Magnus (2011). Art Concept Pluralism. Metaphilosophy 42 (1-2):83-97.
A. Neill & A. Ridley (2012). Relational Theories of Art: The History of an Error. British Journal of Aesthetics 52 (2):141-151.
Olaf Tollefsen (1976). The Family Resemblances Argument and Definitions of Art. Metaphilosophy 7 (3-4):206-216.
Ben Tilghman (2008). Kaufman on Art, Family Resemblances, and Wittgenstein. British Journal of Aesthetics 48 (1):86-88.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads32 ( #100,267 of 1,726,249 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #369,877 of 1,726,249 )
How can I increase my downloads?