Acta Analytica 31 (4):463-479 (2016)

Authors
Annelies Monseré
University of Ghent
Abstract
Most philosophers of art assume that there are three categories with regard to arthood, namely ‘art’, ‘artful’ and ‘non-art’ and that, therefore, a definition must be able to account for ‘artful items’, also called ‘borderline cases of art’. This article, however, defends the thesis that, since there is no agreement over which items fall under the category ‘artful’, the ability to account for borderline cases of art should not be used as a criterion for evaluating definitions of art. The defended thesis is important, not merely because it reveals that virtually all alleged descriptive definitions of art have strong recommendatory consequences, but also because the thesis has implications for the artefacts that are considered to be borderline cases of art.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s12136-016-0285-0
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: 53,666
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Beyond Art.Dominic McIver Lopes - 2014 - Oxford University Press.
Defining Art Historically.Jerrold Levinson - 1979 - British Journal of Aesthetics 19 (3):21-33.
A Philosophy of Mass Art.Noel Carroll - 1997 - Clarendon Press.
The Cluster Account of Art Defended.Berys Gaut - 2005 - British Journal of Aesthetics 45 (3):273-288.

View all 40 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

A Defence of Experimental Philosophy in Aesthetics.Clotilde Torregrossa - 2017 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy:1-23.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Borderline Cases and Bivalence.Diana Raffman - 2005 - Philosophical Review 114 (1):1-31.
How to Respond to Borderline Cases.Dan López de Sa - 2010 - In Sebastiano Moruzzi & Richard Dietz (eds.), Cuts and Clouds. Oxford University Press.
Demoting Higher-Order Vagueness.Diana Raffman - 2009 - In Sebastiano Moruzzi & Richard Dietz (eds.), Cuts and Clouds. Vaguenesss, its Nature and its Logic. Oxford University Press. pp. 509--22.
The Sorites Paradox.Richmond Campbell - 1974 - Philosophical Studies 26 (3-4):175-191.
Excluded Middle.Hugh S. Chandler - 1967 - Journal of Philosophy 64 (24):807-814.
Animalism, Dicephalus, and Borderline Cases.Stephan Blatti - 2007 - Philosophical Psychology 20 (5):595-608.
Truth, Falsity, and Borderline Cases.Timothy Williamson - 2000 - Philosophical Topics 28 (1):211-244.
Disjunctive Predicates.David H. Sanford - 1993 - American Philosophical Quarterly 30 (2):167-1722.
On What It is to Be in a Quandary.Patrick Greenough - 2009 - Synthese 171 (3):399 - 408.
Just What is Vagueness?Otávio Bueno & Mark Colyvan - 2012 - Ratio 25 (1):19-33.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2016-01-19

Total views
57 ( #167,243 of 2,349,372 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
4 ( #186,919 of 2,349,372 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes