{"title":"代理艺术","authors":"R. Yanal","doi":"10.1093/jaac/kpad022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Cultural theories of art were developed to account for the arthood of nonaesthetic and nonimitative artworks. Historical theories such as those proposed by Jerrold Levinson, James Carney, and Noël Carroll fail to account for the arthood of first art and ethnological objects, as does the disjunctive theory of Stephen Davies. An institutional (artworld-based) theory, such as George Dickie’s 1977 version, can account for the arthood of art made within the context of an artworld. But what of objects that are art now but were not made in an artworld context? I add a supplement to Dickie’s institutional theory: the concept of art by proxy.","PeriodicalId":220991,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism","volume":"5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Art by Proxy\",\"authors\":\"R. Yanal\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jaac/kpad022\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Cultural theories of art were developed to account for the arthood of nonaesthetic and nonimitative artworks. Historical theories such as those proposed by Jerrold Levinson, James Carney, and Noël Carroll fail to account for the arthood of first art and ethnological objects, as does the disjunctive theory of Stephen Davies. An institutional (artworld-based) theory, such as George Dickie’s 1977 version, can account for the arthood of art made within the context of an artworld. But what of objects that are art now but were not made in an artworld context? I add a supplement to Dickie’s institutional theory: the concept of art by proxy.\",\"PeriodicalId\":220991,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism\",\"volume\":\"5 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jaac/kpad022\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jaac/kpad022","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
艺术文化理论的发展是为了解释非审美和非模仿艺术作品的优越性。历史理论，如Jerrold Levinson, James Carney和Noël Carroll提出的理论，未能解释第一艺术和民族学对象的重要性，Stephen Davies的分离理论也是如此。一种制度性的(基于艺术界的)理论，比如乔治·迪基(George Dickie) 1977年的版本，可以解释在艺术界背景下创作的艺术的价值。但是，那些现在是艺术品但不是在艺术世界背景下制作的物品呢?我在迪基的制度理论基础上增加了一个补充:代理艺术的概念。
Cultural theories of art were developed to account for the arthood of nonaesthetic and nonimitative artworks. Historical theories such as those proposed by Jerrold Levinson, James Carney, and Noël Carroll fail to account for the arthood of first art and ethnological objects, as does the disjunctive theory of Stephen Davies. An institutional (artworld-based) theory, such as George Dickie’s 1977 version, can account for the arthood of art made within the context of an artworld. But what of objects that are art now but were not made in an artworld context? I add a supplement to Dickie’s institutional theory: the concept of art by proxy.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
