Skip to main content
Log in

Contextualism, art, and rigidity: Levinson, Currie and Davies

  • Published:
Acta Analytica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The topic of this paper is the role played by context in art. In this regard I examine three theories linked to the names of J. Levinson, G. Currie and D. Davies. Levinson’s arguments undermine the structural theory. He finds it objectionable because it makes the individuation of artworks independent of their histories. Secondly, such a consequence is unacceptable because it fails to recognise that works are created rather than discovered. But, if certain general features of provenance are always work-constitutive, as it seems that Levinson is willing to claim, these features must always be essential properties of works. On the other hand, consideration of our modal practice suggests that whether a given general feature of provenance is essential or non-essential depends upon the particular work in question or is “work relative”. D. Davies builds his performance theory on the basis of the critical evaluation of Currie’s action-type hypotheses (ATH). Performances, says Davies, are not to be identified with “basic actions” to which their times belong essentially, but with “doings” that permit of the sorts of variation in modal properties required by the work-relativity of modality. He is also a fierce critic of the contextualist account. Contextualism is in his view unable to reflect the fact that aspects of provenance bear upon our modal judgements with variable force.

In the second part of the paper I consider Davies’s “modality principle”. Davies is inclined to defend the claim that labels used for designation of works are rigid designators. Such a view offers a ground for discussion about the historicity of art. What has been meant when people claim that art is an historical concept? I argue that any historical theory implies a two-dimensional notion of “art”. At the end of the paper I suggest that Davies should embrace the theory of contingent identity and not the colocationist view about the relationship that exists between a particular artwork and its physical bearer.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Currie, G. (1989), An Ontology of Art, St. Martin’s Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Currie, G. (2000), “A note on art and historical concepts”, British Journal of Aesthetics, Vol. 40, No. 1, 186–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, D. (2004), Art as Performance, Blackwell, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbard, A. (1997), “Contingent Identity”, in M. C. Rea (ed.), Material Constitution, Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, 93–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinson, J. (1990), Music, Art, and Metaphysics, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rea, M. C. (1997), Material Constitution, Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomson, J. J. (1997), in M. C. Rea (ed.), Material Constitution, Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, 25–43.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kante, B. Contextualism, art, and rigidity: Levinson, Currie and Davies. Acta Anal 20, 53–63 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12136-005-1011-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12136-005-1011-5

Keywords

Navigation