Citations of work:

Mark Rollins (ed.) (1993). Danto and His Critics.

Order:
Are we missing citations?

PhilPapers citations & references are currently in beta testing. We expect to add many more in the future.

Meanwhile, you can use our bibliography tool to import references for this or another work.

Or you can directly add citations for the above work:

Search for work by author name and title
Add directly by record ID

  1.  67
    The Artful Mind Meets Art History: Toward a Psycho-Historical Framework for the Science of Art Appreciation.Nicolas J. Bullot & Rolf Reber - 2013 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 36 (2):123-180.
    Research seeking a scientific foundation for the theory of art appreciation has raised controversies at the intersection of the social and cognitive sciences. Though equally relevant to a scientific inquiry into art appreciation, psychological and historical approaches to art developed independently and lack a common core of theoretical principles. Historicists argue that psychological and brain sciences ignore the fact that artworks are artifacts produced and appreciated in the context of unique historical situations and artistic intentions. After revealing flaws in the (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   32 citations  
  2.  10
    Exposure, Experience, and Intention Recognition: Take It From the Bottom.Mark Rollins - 2013 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 36 (2):154 - 155.
    The psycho-historical account implies two ways of construing the relation of basic exposure to the artistic design stance and artistic understanding. One is empirically dubious and the other does not fit well with the account. The assumption that combining psychology with history requires identifying actual intentions is undermined by the artistic design stance.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  3.  7
    Questioning the Necessity of the Aesthetic Modes.Katherine Tullmann - 2013 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 36 (2):160 - 161.
    I question both the necessity and the sufficiency of Bullot & Reber's (B&R's) aesthetic modes. I argue that they have not shown how the aesthetic modes are truly – how they concern our experience of artworks as opposed to other kinds of experiences or why the modes are individually necessary for one. I suggest the causal dependence of the modes should be modified.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark