Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Mag Uidhir on What Is “Minimally Viable” in “Art-Theoretic Space”

Mag Uidhir on What Is “Minimally Viable” in “Art-Theoretic Space” <p>Abstract:</p><p><i>Art and Art-Attempts</i> is modest in its professed aim but highly controversial in its professed conclusions. The aim is to investigate “what follows from taking intention-dependence seriously as a substantive necessary condition for being art,” thereby clarifying “the nature of the art-theoretic space that any art theory must occupy so as to be minimally viable as such.” Since almost everyone who claims to be doing theory of art subscribes to the intention-dependence of artworks, we might expect only ecumenical conclusions to result from this investigation. However, by the end of the book, Christy Mag Uidhir has dismissed significant parts of what passes for the most respectable contemporary philosophical work on the nature of artworks, artists, and art-kinds. Taking intention-dependence seriously, it is claimed, entails, inter alia, that we reject Jerrold Levinson’s historical-intentional definition of art on principle and that we accept (1) that there can be no photographic artworks, (2) that no artworks can be abstract entities, and (3) that “repeatable” artworks are multiple distinct <i>works</i> that are “relevantly similar.” I ask how such weighty consequences can follow from such apparently slim beginnings. I identify a couple of moves in the overall argument that strike me as calling for further reflection and sketch the path I think such reflection should follow.</p> http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png The Journal of Aesthetic Education University of Illinois Press

Mag Uidhir on What Is “Minimally Viable” in “Art-Theoretic Space”

Davies, David
The Journal of Aesthetic Education , Volume 52 (2) – May 17, 2018
Download PDF
15 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/university-of-illinois-press/mag-uidhir-on-what-is-minimally-viable-in-art-theoretic-space-xatxyLQp6z

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
University of Illinois Press
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois.
ISSN
1543-7809

Abstract

<p>Abstract:</p><p><i>Art and Art-Attempts</i> is modest in its professed aim but highly controversial in its professed conclusions. The aim is to investigate “what follows from taking intention-dependence seriously as a substantive necessary condition for being art,” thereby clarifying “the nature of the art-theoretic space that any art theory must occupy so as to be minimally viable as such.” Since almost everyone who claims to be doing theory of art subscribes to the intention-dependence of artworks, we might expect only ecumenical conclusions to result from this investigation. However, by the end of the book, Christy Mag Uidhir has dismissed significant parts of what passes for the most respectable contemporary philosophical work on the nature of artworks, artists, and art-kinds. Taking intention-dependence seriously, it is claimed, entails, inter alia, that we reject Jerrold Levinson’s historical-intentional definition of art on principle and that we accept (1) that there can be no photographic artworks, (2) that no artworks can be abstract entities, and (3) that “repeatable” artworks are multiple distinct <i>works</i> that are “relevantly similar.” I ask how such weighty consequences can follow from such apparently slim beginnings. I identify a couple of moves in the overall argument that strike me as calling for further reflection and sketch the path I think such reflection should follow.</p>

Journal

The Journal of Aesthetic Education – University of Illinois Press

Published: May 17, 2018

There are no references for this article.