Pub Date : 2003-10-01DOI: 10.5840/RADPHILREV20036213
H. Linden
{"title":"Explaining, Assessing, and Changing High Consumption","authors":"H. Linden","doi":"10.5840/RADPHILREV20036213","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5840/RADPHILREV20036213","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46296,"journal":{"name":"Radical Philosophy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2003-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"71232941","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Review Of \"The Morality Of Terrorism\" By H. Khatchadourian","authors":"J. W. Frost","doi":"10.5860/CHOICE.36-3265","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5860/CHOICE.36-3265","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46296,"journal":{"name":"Radical Philosophy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"1999-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"71068888","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1987-01-01DOI: 10.4324/9780203411988-12
P. Johnson
Contemporary feminist art theory and practIce has, by and large, turned away from a modernist affirmation of the autonomy of art from IHe towards a post-modern problematisation of the specIfIc category of the aesthetIc. The modernist assertion of the freedom of the autonomous work is held to be inconsistent with feminism's requirements for a committed art responsive to the needs of a determinate publIc. To a contemporary feminism concerned to establlsh the specIfIcity, the legitimate difference, of the feminine, a post-modern ethos whIch repudiates any hierarchisation of world-views and endorses a democratIc plurallsm as the only defensible value appears as the more attractive option. The following paper interrogates the supposition of the radIcal inappropriateness of a modernist aesthetIc to the critIcal requirements of a feminist perspective and challenges the supposed appropriateness of a post-modern standpoint to these needs. Part One of the paper considers a specIfIc case of modernism'S relevance to a feminist art practIce. examine the, admittedly not unambiguous, support Woolf's feminism finds in her allegiance to a modernist aesthetIc developed by the Bloomsbury group. The second part of the paper considers the unacceptable consequences of a radIcal, indiscriminate jettisoning of the main aspirations of modernist art theory for a feminist aesthetIc. Several attempts at constructing a post-modern feminist art are critIcally evaluated and the fundamental inadequacy of these enterprises is traced to an underlying incoherence in the objectives of a post-modern feminism.
{"title":"From Virginia Woolf to the post-moderns: developments in a feminist aesthetic","authors":"P. Johnson","doi":"10.4324/9780203411988-12","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203411988-12","url":null,"abstract":"Contemporary feminist art theory and practIce has, by and large, turned away from a modernist affirmation of the autonomy of art from IHe towards a post-modern problematisation of the specIfIc category of the aesthetIc. The modernist assertion of the freedom of the autonomous work is held to be inconsistent with feminism's requirements for a committed art responsive to the needs of a determinate publIc. To a contemporary feminism concerned to establlsh the specIfIcity, the legitimate difference, of the feminine, a post-modern ethos whIch repudiates any hierarchisation of world-views and endorses a democratIc plurallsm as the only defensible value appears as the more attractive option. The following paper interrogates the supposition of the radIcal inappropriateness of a modernist aesthetIc to the critIcal requirements of a feminist perspective and challenges the supposed appropriateness of a post-modern standpoint to these needs. Part One of the paper considers a specIfIc case of modernism'S relevance to a feminist art practIce. examine the, admittedly not unambiguous, support Woolf's feminism finds in her allegiance to a modernist aesthetIc developed by the Bloomsbury group. The second part of the paper considers the unacceptable consequences of a radIcal, indiscriminate jettisoning of the main aspirations of modernist art theory for a feminist aesthetIc. Several attempts at constructing a post-modern feminist art are critIcally evaluated and the fundamental inadequacy of these enterprises is traced to an underlying incoherence in the objectives of a post-modern feminism.","PeriodicalId":46296,"journal":{"name":"Radical Philosophy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"1987-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70584658","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：