Four theories of inversion in art and music

Southern Journal of Philosophy

Volumn 40, Issue 1, 2002, Pages 1-19

  Dilworth, John ^a  

^a WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 60949192521     PISSN: 00384283     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.2041-6962.2002.tb01886.x     Document Type: Review

References (22)

1. N. Goodman, Languages of Art: An Approach to a Theory of Symbols (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1968), chap. 3, sec. 3, "The Unfakable."
2. Arthur Danto, The Transfiguration of the Commonplace (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1981), ch. 1.
3. Others arguing against the "physical object" assumption include Richard Wollheim, Art and Its Objects: With Six Supplementary Essays 2nd ed. (Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1980);
4. Joseph Margolis, Art and Philosophy (Brighton, Sussex: Harvester, 1980);
5. a recent article of mine, "Artworks Versus Designs," The British Journal of Aesthetics 41, no. 2 (April 2001): 162-177.
6. Jorge Luis Borges, "Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote," in J. L. Borges, Labyrinths (Harmondsworth, Middx.: Penguin, 1985).
7. Jerrold Levinson, Music, Art, and Metaphysics: Essays in Philosophical Aesthetics (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1990), chs. 4 and 5.
8. Danto, The Transfiguration of the Commonplace.
9. Dilworth, "Artworks Versus Designs."
10. A recent (and ongoing) debate between Arthur Danto and Joseph Margolis usefully draws attention to various issues concerning "basic" versus "interpretive" perception. See Joseph Margolis, "Farewell to Danto and Goodman," British Journal of Aesthetics 38, no. 4 (October 1998): 353-74;
11. Arthur Danto, "Indiscernibility and Perception: A Reply to Joseph Margolis," British Journal of Aesthetics 39, no. 4 (October 1999): 321-29,
12. Joseph Margolis, "A Closer Look at Danto's Account of Art and Perception," British Journal of Aesthetics 40, no. 3 (July 2000): 326-39.
13. Ernst Gombrich, Art and Illusion: A Study in the Psychology of Pictorial Representation 2nd ed. (London: Phaidon Press, 1962).
14. Richard Wollheim, Painting as an Art (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1987).
15. Support for a 'type' view as applied to at least some works of art is provided by (among others) N. Carroll, A Philosophy of Mass Art (Oxford: Clarendon Press; Oxford University Press, 1998),
16. G. Currie, An Ontology of Art (Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Macmillan, 1989),
17. Wollheim, Art and Its Objects.
18. Currie, An Ontology of Art.
19. I discuss this issue in more detail in my "Artworks Versus Designs" and also in my article "A Representational Theory of Artefacts and Artworks," British Journal of Aesthetics 41, no. 4 (October 2001): 353-70.
20. Levinson, Music, Art, and Metaphysics.
21. See again my "A Representational Theory of Artefacts and Artworks," and also two forthcoming articles: "Theater, Representation, Types and Interpretation," American Philosophical Quarterly 39, no. 2 (April 2002): 197-209,
22. "The Fictionality of Plays," Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 60, no. 4 (October 2002), in which I extend my representational view to theatrical and other works of fiction.