British Journal of Aesthetics 53 (4):461-477 (2013)
AbstractI sketch here an intuitive picture of repeatable artworks as created types, which are individuated in part by historical paths (re)production. Although attractive, this view has been rejected by a number of authors on the basis of general claims about abstract objects. On consideration, however, these general claims are overgeneralizations, which whilst true of some abstracta, are not true of all abstract objects, and in particular, are not true of created types. The intuitive picture of repeatable artworks as created types is, then, left in place.
Similar books and articles
Destroying Artworks.Marcus Rossberg - 2013 - In Christy Mag Uidhir (ed.), Art & Abstract Objects. Oxford University Press.
Photographic Art: An Ontology Fit to Print.Christy Mag Uidhir - 2012 - Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 70 (1):31-42.
Repeatable Artwork Sentences and Generics.Shieva Kleinschmidt & Jacob Ross - 2013 - In Christy Mag Uidhir (ed.), Art and Abstract Objects. Oxford University Press. pp. 125.
Psycho-Neural Reduction Through Functional Sub-Types.Patrice Soom, Christian Sachse & Michael Esfeld - unknown
Against Musical Works as Eternal Types.Saam Trivedi - 2002 - British Journal of Aesthetics 42 (1):73-82.
Multiple Inheritance and Film Identity: A Reply to Dilworth.Aaron Smuts - 2003 - Contemporary Aesthetics 1:1-3.
The Abstractness of Artworks and Its Implications for Aesthetics.John Dilworth - 2008 - Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 66 (4):341-353.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
Copredication and Property Inheritance.David Liebesman & Ofra Magidor - 2017 - Philosophical Issues 27 (1):131-166.
References found in this work
Can a Musical Work Be Created?Ben Caplan & Carl Matheson - 2004 - British Journal of Aesthetics 44 (2):113-134.
There Are No Things That Are Musical Works.Ross P. Cameron - 2008 - British Journal of Aesthetics 48 (3):295-314.