British Journal of Aesthetics 47 (3):251-257 (2007)
|Abstract||The paper examines certain aspects of institutionalist definitions of art, in particular whether they are committed to ‘indexing’, whereby calling something art makes it art. It is argued that there is no such commitment and that institutionalist definitions need not abandon the idea that works of art become art for specific, and substantial, reasons. The question is how reasons can be accommodated. A proposal from defenders of ‘cluster theories’ is considered and rejected. Another proposal is advanced according to which the reasons, which might change over time, are those acceptable within the artworld at any given time. The idea is explored and its merits identified.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Lars Aagaard-Mogensen (ed.) (1976). Culture and Art: An Anthology. Humanities Press.
Barbara C. Scholz (1994). Rescuing the Institutional Theory of Art: Implicit Definitions and Folk Aesthetics. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 52 (3):309-325.
Daniel A. Kaufman (2007). Family Resemblances, Relationalism, and the Meaning of 'Art'. British Journal of Aesthetics 47 (3):280-297.
Michael Storck (2010). The Meaning of the Word Art. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 84:263-273.
Thomas Adajian (2003). On the Cluster Account of Art. British Journal of Aesthetics 43 (4):379-385.
Paul Crowther (2004). Defining Art, Defending the Canon, Contesting Culture. British Journal of Aesthetics 44 (4):361-377.
Alex Aliyev (2009). The Intentional-Attributive Definition of Art. Consciousness, Literature and the Arts 10 (2).
Aaron Smuts (2005). Are Video Games Art? Contemporary Aesthetics 2.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads14 ( #82,984 of 548,972 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,511 of 548,972 )
How can I increase my downloads?