九个外植菌寻找一个外植菌

David Davies
{"title":"九个外植菌寻找一个外植菌","authors":"David Davies","doi":"10.1093/jaac/kpad044","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Intuitively speaking, a multiple artwork is one that admits of multiple ‘instances’ which are capable of playing a particular role in the appreciation of the work. The ‘explananda’ in the title of this article are things that have been proposed as requiring explanation by any adequate ontology of multiple artworks so conceived. This assumes that the ontology of art is in the business of explaining certain things, an assumption I defend. At least nine purported explananda have been proposed in the relevant literature. I begin by offering a preliminary sketch of these explananda, identifying how they are grounded in our ordinary artistic practice and discourse, and how they have structured recent debates in the ontology of art. I next argue that the notion of ‘instance’ must be understood in a particular way if instance multiplicity is to capture the standard distinction between singular and multiple art forms. I then assess the relative significance and implications of the nine explananda for an adjudication of the debates in the ontology of art. I identify problems for the historically dominant ‘type’ theory of multiples, and propose an alternative account that speaks to all nine explananda. I conclude by reflecting on where this leaves us and how we should proceed.","PeriodicalId":220991,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Nine Explananda in Search of an Explanans\",\"authors\":\"David Davies\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jaac/kpad044\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Intuitively speaking, a multiple artwork is one that admits of multiple ‘instances’ which are capable of playing a particular role in the appreciation of the work. The ‘explananda’ in the title of this article are things that have been proposed as requiring explanation by any adequate ontology of multiple artworks so conceived. This assumes that the ontology of art is in the business of explaining certain things, an assumption I defend. At least nine purported explananda have been proposed in the relevant literature. I begin by offering a preliminary sketch of these explananda, identifying how they are grounded in our ordinary artistic practice and discourse, and how they have structured recent debates in the ontology of art. I next argue that the notion of ‘instance’ must be understood in a particular way if instance multiplicity is to capture the standard distinction between singular and multiple art forms. I then assess the relative significance and implications of the nine explananda for an adjudication of the debates in the ontology of art. I identify problems for the historically dominant ‘type’ theory of multiples, and propose an alternative account that speaks to all nine explananda. I conclude by reflecting on where this leaves us and how we should proceed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":220991,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism\",\"volume\":\"20 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-30\",\"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/kpad044\",\"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/kpad044","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

直观地说,一个多重艺术作品是一个承认多个“实例”的作品,这些实例能够在作品的欣赏中发挥特定的作用。这篇文章标题中的“解释”是指那些被认为需要通过多种艺术作品的适当本体论来解释的东西。这假设了艺术的本体论是用来解释某些事物的,我为这个假设辩护。相关文献中至少提出了九种据称的解释。我首先提供了这些解释的初步草图,确定它们如何根植于我们日常的艺术实践和话语中,以及它们如何组织了最近关于艺术本体论的辩论。接下来,我认为,如果实例多样性是为了抓住单一和多种艺术形式之间的标准区别,那么必须以一种特定的方式理解“实例”的概念。然后,我评估了这九种解释的相对意义和含义,以评判艺术本体论的辩论。我指出了历史上占主导地位的倍数“类型”理论的问题,并提出了一种替代解释,可以解释所有九种解释。最后,我反思了这给我们带来的影响以及我们应该如何继续下去。
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
Nine Explananda in Search of an Explanans
Abstract Intuitively speaking, a multiple artwork is one that admits of multiple ‘instances’ which are capable of playing a particular role in the appreciation of the work. The ‘explananda’ in the title of this article are things that have been proposed as requiring explanation by any adequate ontology of multiple artworks so conceived. This assumes that the ontology of art is in the business of explaining certain things, an assumption I defend. At least nine purported explananda have been proposed in the relevant literature. I begin by offering a preliminary sketch of these explananda, identifying how they are grounded in our ordinary artistic practice and discourse, and how they have structured recent debates in the ontology of art. I next argue that the notion of ‘instance’ must be understood in a particular way if instance multiplicity is to capture the standard distinction between singular and multiple art forms. I then assess the relative significance and implications of the nine explananda for an adjudication of the debates in the ontology of art. I identify problems for the historically dominant ‘type’ theory of multiples, and propose an alternative account that speaks to all nine explananda. I conclude by reflecting on where this leaves us and how we should proceed.
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
Disagreement in Aesthetics and Ethics: Against the Received Image The 2023 Richard Wollheim Memorial Lecture Hegel and the Present of Art’s Past Character Perplexing Plots: Popular Storytelling and the Poetics of Murder Aesthetics in Biodiversity Conservation
×
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