{"title":"Contributors","authors":"","doi":"10.1111/jaac.12769","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jaac.12769","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51571,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF AESTHETICS AND ART CRITICISM","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2020-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/jaac.12769","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134804349","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"艺术学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In this article, I investigate the ways in which improvisation occurs and works in stand-up comedy. I introduce a continuum model of composing and improvising and for understanding and classifying generative and nongenerative performances. The model reflects the fact that cognitive neuroscience research on creativity and improvisation provides evidence for the claim that composing and improvising are two species of the same genus (selective creation), and the differences between generative and nongenerative performance are not categorical but vague, admitting of a continuum model. The model is applied to standard cases of stand-up comedy to illuminate the specific ways in which improvisation and composition are present in stand-up comedy, and the ways in which stand-up comedy performances are mixtures of generative and nongenerative elements. In addition, I address some of the reasons why such understanding is important and useful.
{"title":"Improvisation and Stand-Up Comedy","authors":"TOBYN DEMARCO","doi":"10.1111/jaac.12754","DOIUrl":"10.1111/jaac.12754","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 <p>In this article, I investigate the ways in which improvisation occurs and works in stand-up comedy. I introduce a continuum model of composing and improvising and for understanding and classifying generative and nongenerative performances. The model reflects the fact that cognitive neuroscience research on creativity and improvisation provides evidence for the claim that composing and improvising are two species of the same genus (selective creation), and the differences between generative and nongenerative performance are not categorical but vague, admitting of a continuum model. The model is applied to standard cases of stand-up comedy to illuminate the specific ways in which improvisation and composition are present in stand-up comedy, and the ways in which stand-up comedy performances are mixtures of generative and nongenerative elements. In addition, I address some of the reasons why such understanding is important and useful.</p>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":51571,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF AESTHETICS AND ART CRITICISM","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2020-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/jaac.12754","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132415059","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"艺术学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Introduction: Stand-Up Comedy Today and Tomorrow","authors":"SHEILA LINTOTT","doi":"10.1111/jaac.12759","DOIUrl":"10.1111/jaac.12759","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51571,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF AESTHETICS AND ART CRITICISM","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2020-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/jaac.12759","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133634909","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"艺术学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Jackson, , , Lauren Michele. White Negroes: When Cornrows Were in Vogue… and Other Thoughts on Cultural Appropriation. Boston: Beacon Press, 2019, 184 pp., $25.95 cloth.","authors":"MARIE HADLEY","doi":"10.1111/jaac.12753","DOIUrl":"10.1111/jaac.12753","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51571,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF AESTHETICS AND ART CRITICISM","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2020-08-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/jaac.12753","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116365366","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"艺术学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Disagreements about art are considered here for their potential to pose questions about reality beyond the artwork. The project of assessing artistic value is useful for bringing complex questions to light. The ambitiousness of the cognitive stock, in Richard Wollheim's term, that can be relevant to understanding an artwork may mean that confident evaluation will elude us. Thinking about artistic value judgment in this way shifts its centrality as the point of artistic interpretation and evaluation; the goal of judging a work's meaning and value is a useful tool for prompting us to understand a work. But if we fail to reach that goal, that does not mean we have failed to engage with the work appropriately. The artistic value judgment, and achieving consensus on that value, can be secondary in importance to grasping the problems a work poses that are not immediately resolvable. Examples drawn from literary and philosophical imagining, in the work of Grace Paley and Mary Mothersill, and from Toni Morrison's literary criticism are used to illustrate and support the fruitfulness of this approach.
{"title":"Learning from Aesthetic Disagreement and Flawed Artworks","authors":"EILEEN JOHN","doi":"10.1111/jaac.12748","DOIUrl":"10.1111/jaac.12748","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Disagreements about art are considered here for their potential to pose questions about reality beyond the artwork. The project of assessing artistic value is useful for bringing complex questions to light. The ambitiousness of the cognitive stock, in Richard Wollheim's term, that can be relevant to understanding an artwork may mean that confident evaluation will elude us. Thinking about artistic value judgment in this way shifts its centrality as the point of artistic interpretation and evaluation; the goal of judging a work's meaning and value is a useful tool for prompting us to understand a work. But if we fail to reach that goal, that does not mean we have failed to engage with the work appropriately. The artistic value judgment, and achieving consensus on that value, can be secondary in importance to grasping the problems a work poses that are not immediately resolvable. Examples drawn from literary and philosophical imagining, in the work of Grace Paley and Mary Mothersill, and from Toni Morrison's literary criticism are used to illustrate and support the fruitfulness of this approach.</p>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":51571,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF AESTHETICS AND ART CRITICISM","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2020-08-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/jaac.12748","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130893692","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"艺术学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Carvalho, , , John. Thinking with Images: An Enactivist Aesthetics, New York: Routledge, 2019, x + 150 pp., 16 b&w images, $140.00 cloth.","authors":"SHERYL TUTTLE ROSS","doi":"10.1111/jaac.12752","DOIUrl":"10.1111/jaac.12752","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51571,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF AESTHETICS AND ART CRITICISM","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2020-08-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/jaac.12752","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122986980","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"艺术学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Intermedial art, as it emerged in the 1960s and 1970s, constituted a threat not only to the medium specificity of modernism, but also to the artwork as self-contained autonomous object. That this threat was real is evidenced by the ubiquitous presence of installation art. While only named as such toward the end of this period, installation art––a label still rejected by some of its founding artists––is exemplary of such hybrid practices. Its supporters and critics drew a contrast between, on the one hand, modernism's aesthetic engagement with a medium-specific (and self-sufficient) “object,” and, on the other hand, new so-called nonaesthetic “practices” engaging the “literal” spectator within her own space, such that the space of the gallery or situation is drawn into the encounter. So, while in 1967, Michael Fried writes disparagingly of the notion that “someone has merely to enter the room in which a literalist work has been placed to become that beholder, that audience of one” (1998, 193), Claire Bishop echoes such a claim when she suggests that “an insistence on the literal presence of the viewer is arguably the key characteristic of installation art” (2005, 6). Despite diametrically opposed critical evaluations of such situated art, a curious consensus emerges around a beholder whose “share” is characterized as a “being present.”
It is indicative because it allows us to see an interrelation “between the anti-objectivist impulse of theories of aesthetic experience and the impulses toward the dissolution of the concept of the work in artistic practice”; thus, the opposition toward objectivism in a philosopher like Rüdiger Bubner is at the same time a “reaction to the destruction of the traditional unity of the work in contemporary art,” exemplified, of course, by installation art (Rebentisch 2012, 10).
The object is aesthetic not by virtue of qualities that precede the experience of such an object (that is, guaranteed by production), but only when the encounter with the artwork initiates a specifically aesthetic experience. This is not “a return to subjectivism that would sacrifice the art critical discourse and with it any consideration of questions of productions aesthetics” (130–131), but rather a recognition that art critical discourse necessarily follows aesthetic experience and is, thus, constitutive of such aesthetic objects through processes of reflective transformation.
Through such discursivity, Rebentisch seeks to avoid the pitfalls of an objectivism conceived as self-referential, and a subjectivism that posits the subject's aesthetic experience as its own object. She defines the aesthetic experience of installation art as a relation that does, indeed, involve aesthetic distance, in that it “brackets” the object not just as a self-referential “thing,” but through an event-like experience: a bracketing that highlights the performative role of the
在20世纪60年代和70年代兴起的中间艺术，不仅对现代主义的媒介特殊性构成了威胁，而且对艺术作为独立自主的对象构成了威胁。无处不在的装置艺术证明了这种威胁是真实存在的。虽然装置艺术是在这一时期末期才被命名的，但它是这种混合实践的典范——这个标签仍然被一些创始艺术家所拒绝。它的支持者和批评者提出了一个对比，一方面，现代主义的审美与媒介特定的(和自给自足的)“对象”的接触，另一方面，新的所谓的非审美“实践”吸引了“字面上的”观众在她自己的空间里，这样的画廊或环境的空间被吸引到相遇中。因此，尽管在1967年，迈克尔·弗里德(Michael Fried)轻蔑地写道，“某人只需要进入放置文字主义作品的房间，就可以成为那个观察者，那个观众”(1998,193)，克莱尔·毕晓普(Claire Bishop)回应了这样的说法，她认为“坚持观众的文字存在可以说是装置艺术的关键特征”(2005,6)。尽管对这种定位艺术的批判性评价是完全相反的，一种奇怪的共识出现在一个观察者身上，他的“分享”被描述为“存在”。它之所以具有指示性，是因为它让我们看到了“美学经验理论的反客观主义冲动与艺术实践中作品概念消解的冲动之间的相互关系”;因此，像r<s:1>迪格·布纳(diger Bubner)这样的哲学家对客观主义的反对同时也是“对当代艺术作品传统统一性破坏的反应”，当然，装置艺术就是一个例证(Rebentisch 2012, 10)。对象的审美性不是由于其在体验这种对象之前的品质(也就是说，由生产保证)，而是只有当与艺术品的接触引发了一种特定的审美体验。这并不是“回归到主观主义，牺牲艺术批评话语及其对作品美学问题的任何考虑”(130-131)，而是承认艺术批评话语必然遵循审美经验，因此，通过反思性转化过程构成这些审美对象。通过这样的话语，Rebentisch试图避免被认为是自我参照的客观主义的陷阱，以及将主体的审美经验作为其自身对象的主观主义。她将装置艺术的审美体验定义为一种关系，这种关系确实涉及审美距离，因为它不仅将物体作为一种自我指涉的“事物”，而且通过一种类似事件的体验来“括号”:一种突出主体表演角色的括号。但在这里，极简主义/装置艺术揭示了所有艺术的结构方面，即“审美对象作为物和符号的双重和相互参照的存在，它的‘舞台存在’”(69)。这在表现者和被表现者之间构建了一种张力:弗里德通过声称审美对象的自给自足来拒绝这种张力，这种审美对象在其“瞬时”欣赏中克服了对观察者的任何依赖。因此，对于Rebentisch来说，装置艺术并没有违背“自主艺术的理念”，而是“对它的客观主义误解”(14)。Rebentisch的立场反驳了Osborne(2013)等人的观点，后者认为批判性参与的当代艺术从定义上来说是非审美的，甚至是反审美的。事实上，她更广泛的项目是“恢复哲学美学作为一个关键项目”(Rebentisch 2012, 16)。同时，她认为装置艺术代表了对语境独立艺术的意识形态拒绝。Rebentisch将审美自主性重新塑造，不是作为对象的自给自足，而是作为一种表象(一种从实践和理论理性领域中汲取的经验)，迫使我们面对我们遇到艺术作品时的伦理和政治状况。因此，装置艺术的情境性构成了作品的意义，同时又受制于否定行为。在这里，正如Chytry(2014, 469)在《美学与艺术批评杂志》(The Journal of Aesthetics And Art Criticism)上对Rebentisch的书的评论中指出的那样，“社会维度(进入)艺术体验正是通过她对公共话语的坚持，而公共话语必然完成了她所定义的审美体验。”因此，Rebentisch对主体性指控的辩护是建立在这样一个事实之上的，即接受者并没有“完全控制工作中的主观力量”(271)，而是陷入了一个无法被阻止的振荡过程，因为我们面临着我们自己的历史和社会特定假设。 在这里，意义和材料“只以动态的、对立的相互关系存在于审美经验中”(114)。这就是Rebentisch的描述，尽管缺乏承认，让人想起沃尔夫冈伊瑟尔的接受美学的各个方面，与文学有关。两人都认为审美距离不是一种对作品的社会和历史背景的逃避，而是一种打开另一种视角的潜力，这种视角可能是习惯性的:面对占主导地位的思维模式。在这里，接受者的角色是表演性的。事实上，对伊瑟尔来说，再现既是一种表演行为(在其舞台上呈现出未被给予的东西)，也是一种表象(否认其作为现实副本的地位):“美学的表象只能通过接受者的观念性、表演性活动呈现其形式，因此再现只能在接受者的想象中实现;正是接受者的表演赋予了这种外表以真实感”(Iser 1989, 245)。虽然Rebentisch没有提到伊瑟尔对空白的使用，但她确实提到了海德格尔对“间隙”的描述，即“空虚”，它不是什么都没有，而是“建立一个地方或情况的暗示”(Heidegger 1997, 123-124)。Rebentisch强调这种场景或情境的对抗倾向“在这些过程中一次又一次地分崩离析，只有通过重新阅读才能以潜在的新的和不同的方式收集和安排”(2012,245-246)。但与Rebentisch相反，我想说这不仅仅是一个解释的过程，而是对构成作品的创造性过程的批判性检索(Wollheim 1980)。人们可能会想到科妮莉亚·帕克(Cornelia Parker) 1991年的装置作品《冰冷的暗物质:爆炸的景象》(Cold Dark Matter: An Exploded View)，这是一件悬空的作品，将英国军队在帕克的要求下炸毁的花园棚屋中的烧焦碎片重新组合在一起。在这里，爆炸、散落材料的回收、装置的精心配置都是作品意义的关键。但这不仅仅是一个艺术家决策重建的案例。批判性检索的概念提供了扩展想象力在作品呈现和接受之间调解作用的机会。对于伊瑟尔来说，消极性“通过作者在文本中使用空白或断线，启动了那些必要的想象过程，以引出那些条件的虚拟性”(1989,142)。因此，思想和投射的行为虽然是不确定的，却是许可的。然而，伊瑟尔指出，“文学的标志性符号构成了一个能指组织，它不是用来指定一个所指对象，而是指定生产所指的指令”(1978,65)。这需要读者/旁观者的参与。在帕克的装置作品中，它要求我们联想到不存在的因果事件的暴力，这种暴力被静态的展示带入紧张状态，这种展示只会被观察者的运动所激活。因此，装置艺术的指标性标志在其最深刻的意义上使观者的取向成为问题，不仅反映了作品的位置功能——通过让我们的空间取向发挥作用——而且还反映了我们的意识形态取向:引诱我们进入由空间的动态势组织的相遇，同时排斥我们(提醒我们我们对作品的虚拟领域的外部性)。如果审美自主性被重塑为一种动态的操作，与我们遇到的艺术作品的伦理和政治情况有关，那么框架扮演什么角色?考虑到装置艺术的沉浸感——置身于作品内部而非作品外部——以及装置艺术是否要避免堕落为罗莎琳德·克劳斯(Rosalind Krauss)错误地(我相信)声称的那种奇观，这是它的固有条件，这个问题是相关的。然而，场地的特殊性，虽然是一些装置的一个特点，但并不是必要条件，正如帕克的《冷暗物质》——一个多次迭代的作品——可以证明的那样。事实上，艺术的双重本土
{"title":"Installation Art and the Question of Aesthetic Autonomy: Juliane Rebentisch and the Beholder's Share","authors":"KEN WILDER","doi":"10.1111/jaac.12735","DOIUrl":"10.1111/jaac.12735","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Intermedial art, as it emerged in the 1960s and 1970s, constituted a threat not only to the medium specificity of modernism, but also to the artwork as self-contained autonomous object. That this threat was real is evidenced by the ubiquitous presence of installation art. While only named as such toward the end of this period, installation art––a label still rejected by some of its founding artists––is exemplary of such hybrid practices. Its supporters and critics drew a contrast between, on the one hand, modernism's aesthetic engagement with a medium-specific (and self-sufficient) “object,” and, on the other hand, new so-called nonaesthetic “practices” engaging the “literal” spectator within her own space, such that the space of the gallery or situation is drawn into the encounter. So, while in 1967, Michael Fried writes disparagingly of the notion that “someone has merely to enter the room in which a literalist work has been placed to become that beholder, that audience of one” (<span>1998</span>, 193), Claire Bishop echoes such a claim when she suggests that “an insistence on the literal presence of the viewer is arguably the key characteristic of installation art” (<span>2005</span>, 6). Despite diametrically opposed critical evaluations of such situated art, a curious consensus emerges around a beholder whose “share” is characterized as a “being present.”</p><p>It is indicative because it allows us to see an interrelation “between the anti-objectivist impulse of theories of aesthetic experience and the impulses toward the dissolution of the concept of the work in artistic practice”; thus, the opposition toward objectivism in a philosopher like Rüdiger Bubner is <i>at the same time</i> a “reaction to the destruction of the traditional unity of the work in contemporary art,” exemplified, of course, by installation art (Rebentisch <span>2012</span>, 10).</p><p>The object is aesthetic not by virtue of qualities that <i>precede</i> the experience of such an object (that is, guaranteed by production), but only when the encounter with the artwork initiates a specifically aesthetic experience. This is not “a return to subjectivism that would sacrifice the art critical discourse and with it any consideration of questions of productions aesthetics” (130–131), but rather a recognition that art critical discourse necessarily <i>follows</i> aesthetic experience and is, thus, constitutive of such aesthetic objects through processes of reflective transformation.</p><p>Through such discursivity, Rebentisch seeks to avoid the pitfalls of an objectivism conceived as self-referential, and a subjectivism that posits the subject's aesthetic experience <i>as its own object</i>. She defines the aesthetic experience of installation art as a relation that does, indeed, involve aesthetic distance, in that it “brackets” the object not just as a self-referential “thing,” but through an event-like experience: a bracketing that highlights the performative role of the ","PeriodicalId":51571,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF AESTHETICS AND ART CRITICISM","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2020-08-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/jaac.12735","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132533554","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"艺术学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Contributors","authors":"","doi":"10.1111/jaac.12751","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jaac.12751","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51571,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF AESTHETICS AND ART CRITICISM","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2020-08-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/jaac.12751","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134805480","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"艺术学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Lewis, , , Eric. Intents and Purposes: Philosophy and the Aesthetics of Improvisation. University of Michigan Press, 2019, 280 pp., 3 b&w illus., $80.00 cloth.","authors":"CASEY HASKINS","doi":"10.1111/jaac.12746","DOIUrl":"10.1111/jaac.12746","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51571,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF AESTHETICS AND ART CRITICISM","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2020-08-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/jaac.12746","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116834423","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"艺术学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The 2021 John Fisher Memorial Prize","authors":"","doi":"10.1111/jaac.12737","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jaac.12737","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51571,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF AESTHETICS AND ART CRITICISM","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2020-08-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/jaac.12737","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134805478","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"艺术学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号