British Journal of Aesthetics 45 (2):123-137 (2005)

Authors
Sherri Irvin
University of Oklahoma
Abstract
Appropriation art has often been thought to support the view that authorship in art is an outmoded or misguided notion. Through a thought experiment comparing appropriation art to a unique case of artistic forgery, I examine and reject a number of candidates for the distinction that makes artists the authors of their work while forgers are not. The crucial difference is seen to lie in the fact that artists bear ultimate responsibility for whatever objectives they choose to pursue through their work, whereas the forger's central objectives are determined by the nature of the activity of forgery. Appropriation artists, by revealing that no aspect of the objectives an artist pursues are in fact built in to the concept of art, demonstrate artists' responsibility for all aspects of their objectives and, hence, of their products. This responsibility is constitutive of authorship and accounts for the interpretability of artworks. Far from undermining the concept of authorship in art, then, the appropriation artists in fact reaffirm and strengthen it.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1093/aesthj/ayi015
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 56,999
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

What is Wrong with a Forgery?Alfred Lessing - 1965 - Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 23 (4):461-471.
Self-Plagiarism.David Goldblati - 1984 - Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 43 (1):71-77.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Appropriation Art, Fair Use, and Metalinguistic Negotiation.Elizabeth Cantalamessa - 2020 - British Journal of Aesthetics 60 (2):115-129.
Minimal Authorship (of Sorts).Christy Mag Uidhir - 2011 - Philosophical Studies 154 (3):373 - 387.
Revisiting Ventzislavov's Thesis: “Curating Should Be Understood as a Fine Art”.Sue Spaid - 2016 - Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 74 (1):87-91.
Forgery and Appropriation in Art.Darren Hudson Hick - 2010 - Philosophy Compass 5 (12):1047-1056.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total views
297 ( #27,292 of 2,410,273 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #346,720 of 2,410,273 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes