The irreducible historicality of the concept of art
British Journal of Aesthetics 42 (4):367-379 (2002)
| Abstract | In this short paper I begin by underlining the sense in which my intentional-historical theory of art, first proposed in 1979, attributes to art a certain irreducible historicality. I next defend the theory, in broad outline, against a number of objections that have been raised against it in the past ten years. I conclude with some remarks on the similarities and differences between ordinary artefact concepts and the concept of an artwork. | |||||||||
| 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 |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesBerys Gaut (2005). The Cluster Account of Art Defended. British Journal of Aesthetics 45 (3):273-288.
Christy Mag Uidhir (2009). Why Pornography Can't Be Art. Philosophy and Literature 33 (1):pp. 193-203.
Peter Goldie (2007). Towards A Virtue Theory of Art. British Journal of Aesthetics 47 (4):372-387.
Aaron Meskin (2007). The Cluster Account of Art Reconsidered. British Journal of Aesthetics 47 (4):388-400.
Jerrold Levinson (2006). Contemplating Art: Essays in Aesthetics. Oxford University Press.
Dominic McIver Lopes (2007). Art Without ‘Art’. British Journal of Aesthetics 47 (1):1-15.
Richard Shusterman (2003). Entertainment: A Question for Aesthetics. British Journal of Aesthetics 43 (3):289-307.
Christy Mag Uidhir & P. D. Magnus (2011). Art Concept Pluralism. Metaphilosophy 42 (1-2):83-97.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads34 ( #35,345 of 549,078 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,317 of 549,078 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
