Abstract

Levinson’s and Carroll’s historical theories are among the most interesting contemporary answers to the problem of knowing what art is. Although both authors believe that we cannot ignore the relation between art and its own history in order to understand the nature of art, their projects have very different ambitions. Levinson seeks a real definition of art, capable of dealing with every possible case. Carroll, who believes that Levinson’s project faces many difficulties, proposes just a criterion to identify works of art, thus providing a characterization or nominal definition of art. In this paper my aim is to present and discuss, albeit succinctly, these two philosophical theories about the nature of art, and to determine whether they fulfill their own ends.