马戈利斯论定义艺术

James O Young
{"title":"马戈利斯论定义艺术","authors":"James O Young","doi":"10.19079/eajp.2.2.71","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Joseph Margolis’ writings on definitions of art, which often take the form of a debate with Morris Weitz, are under-appreciated. Margolis agrees with Weitz that the concept of art is open in the sense that works can be admitted to the class of artworks when these works do not have all of the properties thought to be necessary and sufficient for membership in the class prior to the time of its admission. Margolis also agreed that we cannot go back to the old project of defining art by determining the real essence of art. Nevertheless, he does not abandon the project of defining art in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions. These conditions are not, however, read off the real essence of art. Traditionally, the process of defining art began by inspecting artworks to determine what makes them valuable. Margolis realised that the only way forward at this point is to decide what is valuable and then decide what is art. Margolis’ approach has the consequence that definitions of art are what C. L. Stevenson (1938) called persuasive definitions.","PeriodicalId":300319,"journal":{"name":"East Asian Journal of Philosophy","volume":"423 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Margolis on Defining Art\",\"authors\":\"James O Young\",\"doi\":\"10.19079/eajp.2.2.71\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Joseph Margolis’ writings on definitions of art, which often take the form of a debate with Morris Weitz, are under-appreciated. Margolis agrees with Weitz that the concept of art is open in the sense that works can be admitted to the class of artworks when these works do not have all of the properties thought to be necessary and sufficient for membership in the class prior to the time of its admission. Margolis also agreed that we cannot go back to the old project of defining art by determining the real essence of art. Nevertheless, he does not abandon the project of defining art in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions. These conditions are not, however, read off the real essence of art. Traditionally, the process of defining art began by inspecting artworks to determine what makes them valuable. Margolis realised that the only way forward at this point is to decide what is valuable and then decide what is art. Margolis’ approach has the consequence that definitions of art are what C. L. Stevenson (1938) called persuasive definitions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":300319,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"East Asian Journal of Philosophy\",\"volume\":\"423 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"East Asian Journal of Philosophy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.19079/eajp.2.2.71\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"East Asian Journal of Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.19079/eajp.2.2.71","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

约瑟夫·马戈利斯(Joseph Margolis)关于艺术定义的著作,经常以与莫里斯·韦茨(Morris Weitz)辩论的形式出现,没有得到足够的重视。马戈利斯同意韦茨的观点,艺术的概念是开放的,在某种意义上,当作品在被接纳之前不具备被认为是该类成员所必需和充分的所有属性时,这些作品可以被接纳为艺术品。马戈利斯也同意,我们不能回到通过确定艺术的真正本质来定义艺术的旧计划。然而,他并没有放弃用必要和充分条件来定义艺术的计划。然而,这些条件并不能解读出艺术的真正本质。传统上,定义艺术的过程始于检查艺术品,以确定它们的价值所在。马戈利斯意识到,在这一点上前进的唯一途径是决定什么是有价值的,然后决定什么是艺术。马戈利斯的方法的结果是,艺术的定义是c.l.史蒂文森(1938)所说的有说服力的定义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Margolis on Defining Art
Joseph Margolis’ writings on definitions of art, which often take the form of a debate with Morris Weitz, are under-appreciated. Margolis agrees with Weitz that the concept of art is open in the sense that works can be admitted to the class of artworks when these works do not have all of the properties thought to be necessary and sufficient for membership in the class prior to the time of its admission. Margolis also agreed that we cannot go back to the old project of defining art by determining the real essence of art. Nevertheless, he does not abandon the project of defining art in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions. These conditions are not, however, read off the real essence of art. Traditionally, the process of defining art began by inspecting artworks to determine what makes them valuable. Margolis realised that the only way forward at this point is to decide what is valuable and then decide what is art. Margolis’ approach has the consequence that definitions of art are what C. L. Stevenson (1938) called persuasive definitions.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A Note on Mr. Margolis and the Definition of Dance The Legacy of Joseph Margolis Margolis on Defining Art On the Meanings and Implications of Joseph Margolis' Definition of Art Waitsu shi to geijutsu no teigi
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1