What a musical forgery isn't

British Journal of Aesthetics

Volumn 39, Issue 1, 1999, Pages 62-71

  Janaway, Christopher ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 63149126146     PISSN: 00070904     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/bjaesthetics/39.1.62     Document Type: Article

References (9)

1. C. Janaway, 'Two Kinds of Artistic Duplication', British Journal of Aesthetics, vol. 37 (1997), pp. 1-14.
2. N. Goodman, Languages of Art (Brighton: Harvester, 1981), ch. III.
3. Taking the term from Jerrold Levinson, Music, Art, and Metaphysics (Ithaca and London: Cornell U.P., 1990), p. 103. It may be appropriate to issue a standard reminder that not all instances of forgery are covered by this discussion. We are not discussing the kind of forgery ('inventive forgery' for Levinson), in which something new I have written is passed off as a hitherto unknown work by Schubert. We are discussing only the putative musical analogue of copying a certain existing painting, and passing off the copy as that individual object.
4. Goodman, Languages of Art, p. 122.
5. For some objections, see Lydia Goehr, The Imaginary Museum of Musical Works (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992), pp. 44-68;
6. and Stephen Davies, 'Mozart's Requiem? A Reply to Levinson', British Journal of Aesthetics, vol. 32 (1992), pp. 254-257.
7. Levinson helpfully lists other discussions of his view at Music, Art, and Metaphysics, p. 215, n. 2.
8. See James Anderson, 'Musical Kinds', British Journal of Aesthetics, vol. 25 (1985), pp. 43-49.
9. In Janaway,'Two Kinds of Artistic Duplication', p. 9.