Peg Brand Weiser
Indiana University Purdue University, Indianapolis
In "Convention and Dickie's Institutional Theory" (British Journal of Aesthetics 1980), Catherine Lord maintains the following thesis: (L) If a work of art is defined as institutional and conventional, then the definition precludes the freedom and creativity associated with art. Lord also maintains that the antecedent of this conditional is false. In this note, I argue that (i) certain confusions and assumptions prevent Lord from showing the antecedent is false, and (ii) even if the antecedent is assumed to be true, there are counterexamples to the entire conditional. With regard to (ii), I will suggest that conventionality is necessary for creativity. [This was my first published paper, written as a graduate student, taken from my University of Illinois at Chicago dissertation written with Professor George Dickie on the topic of conventions, utilitizing David Lewis' definition of "convention."]
Keywords Catherine Lord  David Lewis  definition of art
Categories (categorize this paper)
Reprint years 1982
DOI 10.2307/429688
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

References found in this work BETA

Languages and Language.David K. Lewis - 1975 - In Keith Gunderson (ed.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science. University of Minnesota Press. pp. 3-35.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

The Expression Theory Again.Stephen Davies - 1986 - Theoria 52 (3):146-167.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles


Added to PP index

Total views
175 ( #53,755 of 2,403,892 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
31 ( #26,551 of 2,403,892 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes