Theater, representation, types, and interpretation

American Philosophical Quarterly

Volumn 39, Issue 2, 2002, Pages 197-209

  Dilworth, John ^a  

^a WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 60950684431     PISSN: 00030481     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. See John Dilworth, "The Fictionality of Plays," forthcoming in The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, vol. 60, no. 4 (October 2002)
2. E.g., see the recent symposium, David Z. Saltz, James R. Hamilton, and Noel Carroll, "Symposium: Staging Interpretations," The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, vol. 59, no. 3 (2001), pp. 299-316, and the references contained therein
3. Kendall L. Walton, Mimesis as Make-Believe : On the Foundations of the Representational Arts (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1990)
4. Dilworth, "The Fictionality of Plays."
5. Hence the title, "The Fictionality of Plays."
6. We have also recently given a similar representational analysis of visual artworks such as paintings: see John Dilworth, "A Representational Theory of Artefacts and Artworks," The British Journal of Aesthetics, vol. 41, no. 4 (October 2001), pp. 353-370
7. Also see another paper of ours, "Three Depictive Views Defended," forthcoming in The British Journal of Aesthetics, vol. 42, no. 3 (July 2002), for a more comprehensive inseparability argument for represented artworks and their own representational contents
8. Support for a "type" view as applied to the performing arts is provided by (among others) Noel Carroll, A Philosophy of Mass Art (Oxford: Clarendon Press; Oxford University Press, 1998)
9. Gregory Currie, An Ontology of Art (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1989)
10. Joseph Margolis, Art and Philosophy (Brighton, Sussex: Harvester, 1980)
11. and Richard Wollheim, Art and Its Objects : With Six Supplementary Essays 2d ed. (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1980)
12. We have criticized such views in our article "Artworks Versus Designs," The British Journal of Aesthetics, vol. 41, no. 2 (April 2001), pp. 162-177, where we show (among other things) that two distinct artworks could be associated with the same artifact, so that on a type view (per impossibile) a single artifact would have to be a token of two distinct types of the same general kind. We give some further criticisms of "type" views in various non-theatrical arts in our "A Representational Theory of Artefacts and Artworks," though our criticisms in the present paper on plays are new
13. The British Journal of Aesthetics, Wollheim, op. cit., Secs. 35-38
14. Carroll, A Philosophy of Mass Art, p. 213
15. Wollheim, op. cit., p. 82
16. Saltz, Hamilton, and Carroll, "Symposium: Staging Interpretations."
17. E.g., see Dominic Lopes, Understanding Pictures (Oxford: Clarendon Press ; Oxford University Press, 1996), Ch. 1
18. We provide some independent arguments of these kinds for non-theatrical arts in our articles "Artworks Versus Designs" and "A Representational Theory of Artefacts and Artworks."