David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
In , Art & Abstract Objects. Oxford University Press (2013)
I consider the field of aesthetics to be at its most productive and engaging when adopting a broadly philosophically informative approach to its core issues (e.g., shaping and testing putative art theoretic commitments against the relevant standard models employed in philosophy of language, metaphysics, and philosophy of mind) and to be at its most impotent and bewildering when cultivating a philosophically insular character (e.g., selecting interpretative, ontological, or conceptual models solely for fit with pre-fixed art theoretic commitments). For example, when philosophical aesthetics tends toward insularity, we shouldn’t be surprised to find standard art-ontological categories incongruous with those standardly employed in contemporary metaphysics. Of course, when contemporary metaphysics tends to ignore aesthetic and art theoretic concerns, perhaps we likewise shouldn’t be surprised to find the climate of contemporary metaphysics inhospitable for a theory of art. While this may seem to suggest at least a prima facie tension between our basic art theoretic commitments considered from within philosophical aesthetics and our standard ontological commitments considered from without, I think any perceived tension or antagonism largely due to metaphysicians and aestheticians (at least implicitly) assuming there to be but two available methodological positions with respect to the relationship between contemporary metaphysics and philosophical aesthetics (in the relevant overlap areas). I call these two opposing views the Deference View and the Independence View. I argue that either view looks to lead to what I call the Paradox of Standards.
|Keywords||Art Abstract Objects Art Ontology|
|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
Christy Mag Uidhir (ed.) (2013). Art & Abstract Objects. Oxford University Press.
Christy Mag Uidhir (2010). Failed-Art and Failed Art-Theory. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 88 (3):381-400.
Thomas Eddington (1978). Contemporary Art & the Metaphysics of the Art Expression. Gloucester Art Press.
Kathleen Kadon Desmond (2011). Ideas About Art. Wiley-Blackwell.
Lars Aagaard-Mogensen (ed.) (1976). Culture and Art: An Anthology. Humanities Press.
Christy Mag Uidhir (2009). Why Pornography Can't Be Art. Philosophy and Literature 33 (1):pp. 193-203.
Christy Mag Uidhir (2012). Photographic Art: An Ontology Fit to Print. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 70 (1):31-42.
Karol Berger (2000). A Theory of Art. Oxford University Press.
Aaron Smuts (2005). Are Video Games Art? Contemporary Aesthetics 2.
Gary Willis (2009). Art as Mime: The Key Issues Concerning Contemporary Art. Lambert Academic Publishing.
Added to index2012-07-30
Total downloads66 ( #26,413 of 1,413,407 )
Recent downloads (6 months)17 ( #12,612 of 1,413,407 )
How can I increase my downloads?