David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophy 58 (225):303 - 313 (1983)
1. There is an important argument which can be traced back to Kant's second and third Critiques , and which has been defended by a number of distinguished modern philosophers.1 It goes as follows. Moral judgments are universalizable; that is, I am logically committed to making the same moral judgment about all relevantly similar cases. If I refuse to make the same moral judgment about two relevantly similar cases, then either I believe that they are relevantly different, or I have changed my moral views between examining the first case and examining the second, or I am simply irrational and not a proper subject for discussion. In contrast, however, aesthetic judgments are not universalizable; works of art are necessarily unique. If I say that a painting is aesthetically pleasing or successful or important or striking or whatever, I am not committed to making the same judgment about any relevantly similar work. Occasionally no doubt I might make the same judgment about a relevantly similar work, but I am in no way logically committed to doing so. Indeed in certain cases—the cases which are the topic of this paper—I am logically committed to making an entirely different aesthetic judgment of a relevantly similar work. Since works of art are necessarily unique, copies, fakes, forgeries, pastiches and ‘works in the style of …’, however plausible, however skilful, however close to the original, can never have the same aesthetic merit. Even if my Athena print of a Canaletto were qualitatively identical with the original, it could not have the same aesthetic merit. Even if a modern symphony reproduced perfectly the style of Mozart and even if it were in general of comparable musical quality, it could not have the same aesthetic merit as the forty-one originals
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(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
Jonathan Matheson (2011). The Case for Rational Uniqueness. Logic and Episteme 2 (3):359-373.
D. W. Zaidel & M. Nadal (2011). Brain Intersections of Aesthetics and Morals Perspectives From Biology, Neuroscience, and Evolution. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 54 (3):367-380.
Babette Babich, The Genealogy of Morals and Right Reading: On the Nietzschean Aphorism and the Art of the Polemic.
Nancy R. Howell (2008). Uniqueness in Context. Zygon 43 (2):493-503.
Harold Taylor (1960). Art and the Intellect. New York, Published by the Museum of Modern Art;.
Vishwanath S. Naravane (2000). Creative Stillness: Indian Perspectives on Art & Beauty. Distributors, Lokbharti.
P. N. Humble (1983). On the Uniqueness of Art. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 42 (1):39-47.
Jacques Maritain (1960). The Responsibility of the Artist. New York, Scribner.
Added to index2010-08-10
Total downloads2 ( #553,718 of 1,726,249 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #369,877 of 1,726,249 )
How can I increase my downloads?