Aesthetics and the Philosophy of Art: An Introduction (Elements of Philosophy)
Format: PDF / Kindle (mobi) / ePub
Praised in its original edition for its up-to-date, rigorous presentation of current debates and for the clarity of its presentation, Robert Stecker's new edition of Aesthetics and the Philosophy of Art preserves the major themes and conclusions of the original, while expanding its content, providing new features, and enhancing accessibility. Stecker introduces students to the history and evolution of aesthetics, and also makes an important distinction between aesthetics and philosophy of art. While aesthetics is the study of value, philosophy of art deals with a much wider array of questions including issues in metaphysics, epistemology, the philosophy of mind, as well value theory. Described as a 'remarkably unified introduction to many contemporary debates in aesthetics and the philosophy of art,' Stecker specializes in sympathetically laying bear the play of argument that emerges as competing views on a topic engage each other. This book does not simply present a controversy in its current state of play, but instead demonstrates a philosophical mind at work helping to advance the issue toward a solution.
love that well which thou must leave ere long. The subject of the poem’s main body (before the rhymed couplet at the end) is the waning of life, beauty, and, perhaps, passion in growing old. The metaphors for these things that the work employs, considered in the abstract, are very familiar, even trite, and would have been so in Shakespeare’s day too: a particular season—winter, times of day—twilight, night, a fire dying out, ruins. What makes this a great poem is the way the metaphors are
what makes a given work the individual work it is. However it won’t help us with the classificatory project of the last chapter. Being a physical object or a structural type does not distinguish artworks from many other objects, which are also physical things or structural types but are not artworks. For example, your kitchen sink is a physical object, and an apartment lease is a structural type, but neither are artworks unless they are atypical instances of their kinds. However, distinguishing
it is false. A plausible alternative principle says that we can have different physical objects in the same place at the same time as long as they are different kinds of physical objects (Wiggins 1980). There is no reason why the identity parameters of some physical objects, especially functional objects made by human beings, should not be interest-relative and culturally conditioned. So wheels and lumps of iron (even wheel-shaped lumps) are both physical objects, but different kinds of physical
context-sensitive structural type differ from a pure abstract structure? With which, if either, type of entity are literary and musical works more plausibly identified? Is it possible for two structurally identical scores to indicate two different musical works? 4. Are the statue and the lump of clay two distinct physical objects? Can two such objects exist in the same place at the same time? Notes 1. It should be emphasized that “intentional object” is a technical term to indicate
experiences. Compare depictions to descriptions. Descriptions are linguistic representations. Descriptions seem (and are) arbitrary or conventional. That “red” rather than “rot” means red in English is simply the result of the conventions currently holding for that language. There is nothing intrinsically more suitable about “red” compared to “rot” that makes it worthy of designating the color red. This can be seen from the fact “rot” does the same job in German. We should note in