Articles
Execution, Implementation and Activation: Goodmanian Contributions to the Problem of the Definition of Art in Analytical Aesthetics
Published 2017-05-01
Keywords
- philosophy of art,
- analytic philosophy,
- aesthetics,
- definition of art
- filosofÃa del arte,
- filosofÃa analÃtica,
- estética,
- definición del arte
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Abstract
Analytic aesthetic addressed the problem of the definition of art and found an alt ernative effcient solution in the Dantian concept of artworld. Nevertheless, the contextualist side of the Danto’s program must face the claim of a certain lack of specificity. This paper seeks to link that with the developments made by Goodman around art in order to provide effective visible elements to such claim. In doing so, it is expected to analyze the difference between execution and implementation as central instances of artmaking according to his functionalist reading. The relation between both accounts represents, thus, an innovation over the theoretical area in which is inserted as much as a considerable advantage over the contextualist treatment of the problem.
References
Adajian, T. (2012), “The Definition of Art” en Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Recuperado de http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2012/entries/art-definition/ (05-04-2017).
Beardsley, M. C. (1961), “The Definitions of the Arts”, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 20 (2), pp. 175-187.
Borges, J. L. (1944), “Pierre Menard, autor del Quijote” en Ficciones, Buenos Aires, Sur.
Carroll, N. (1999), Philosophy of Art: A Contemporary Introduction, Nueva York, Routledge.
Carroll, N. (2001), Beyond Aesthetics, Nueva York, Cambridge University Press.
Cometti, J. P. (2000), “Activating Art”, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 58 (3), pp. 237-243.
Danto, A. (1964), “The Artworld”, The Journal of Philosophy, 61, pp. 571-584.
Danto, A. (1992), Beyond the Brillo Box, Berkeley, University of California Press.
Danto, A. (2004), La transfiguración del lugar común, Buenos Aires, Paidós.
Danto, A. (2005), “Tres cajas de brillo: cuestiones de estilo” en Danto, A., Chateau, D. et al., Estética después del fin del arte: Ensayos sobre Arthur Danto, Madrid, Antonio Machado, pp. 19-40.
Danto, A. (2006), Después del fin del arte: el arte contemporáneo y el linde de la historia, Buenos Aires, Paidós.
Dickie, G. (1969), “Defining Art”, American Philosophical Quarterly, 6 (3), pp. 253-256.
Dickie, G. (1974), Art and the Aesthetic: An Institutional Analysis, Ithaca, Cornell University Press.
Dickie, G. (2005), El círculo del arte, Buenos Aires, Paidós.
Elgin, C. (1983), With Reference to Reference, Cambridge, Hackett.
Elgin, C. (1991), “What Goodman Leaves out”, Journal of Aesthetic Education, 25 (1), pp. 89-96.
Elgin, C. (2001), “The Legacy of Nelson Goodman”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 62 (3), pp. 679-690.
Elgin, C. (2011), “Making Manifest: The Role of Exemplification in the Sciences and the Arts”, Principia, pp. 399-413.
Giovanelli, A. (2010), “Goodman’s Aesthetics” en Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Recuperado de http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2010/entries/goodman-aesthetics/ (05-04-2017).
Goodman, N. (1972), Problems and Projects, Indianapolis, Bobbs-Merrill.
Goodman, N. (1976), Los lenguajes del arte, Barcelona, Seix Barral.
Goodman, N. (1990), Maneras de hacer mundos, Madrid, Visor.
Goodman, N. (1995), De la mente y otras materias, Madrid, Visor.
Goodman, N. y Elgin, C. (1986), “Interpretation and Identity: Can the Work Survive the World?”, Critical Inquiry, 12 (3), pp. 564-575.
Goodman, N. y Elgin, C. (1988), Reconceptions in Philosophy and Other Arts and Sciences, Indianapolis, Hackett.
Kennick, W. (1958), “Does Traditional Aesthetics Rest on a Mistake?”, Mind, 67, pp. 317-334.
Levinson, J. (1979), “Defining Art Historically” en Lamarque, P. y Olsen, S. H. (eds.) (2004), Aesthetics and the Philosophy of Art: The Analytic Tradition, Massachusetts, Blackwell, pp. 35-46.
Levinson, J. (1989), “Refining Art Historically”, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 47 (1), pp. 21-33.
Levinson, J. (1993), “Extending Art Historically”, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 51 (3), pp. 411-423.
Mandelbaum, M. (1965), “Family Resemblances and Generalizations Concerning the Arts”, American Philosophical Quarterly, 2 (3), pp. 219-228.
Pérez Carreño, F. (1996), “Nelson Goodman” en Bozal, V. (ed.), Historia de las ideas estéticas y de las teorías artísticas contemporáneas, vol. II, Madrid, Visor, pp. 106-111.
Vermuelen, I., Brun, G. y Baumberger, Ch. (2009), “Five Ways of (not) Defining Exemplification”, en Ernst, G., Scholtz, O. y Steinbrennen, J. (eds.) (2009), From Logic to Art: Themes from Nelson Goodman, Fráncfort, Ontos.
Weitz, M. (1956), “The Role of Theory in Aesthetics”, Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 15 (1), pp. 27-35.
Wollheim, R. (1970), “Nelson Goodman’s Languages of Art”, The Journal of Philosophy, 67 (16), pp. 531-539.
Wollheim, R. (1972), El arte y sus objetos, Barcelona, Seix Barral.
Wollheim, R. (1978), “Are the Criteria of Identity that Hold for a Work of Art in Different Arts Aesthetically Relevant?”, Ratio, 20, pp. 29-48.
Ziff, P. (1953) “The Task of Defining a Work of Art”, The Philosophical Review, 62 (1), pp. 58-78.
Beardsley, M. C. (1961), “The Definitions of the Arts”, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 20 (2), pp. 175-187.
Borges, J. L. (1944), “Pierre Menard, autor del Quijote” en Ficciones, Buenos Aires, Sur.
Carroll, N. (1999), Philosophy of Art: A Contemporary Introduction, Nueva York, Routledge.
Carroll, N. (2001), Beyond Aesthetics, Nueva York, Cambridge University Press.
Cometti, J. P. (2000), “Activating Art”, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 58 (3), pp. 237-243.
Danto, A. (1964), “The Artworld”, The Journal of Philosophy, 61, pp. 571-584.
Danto, A. (1992), Beyond the Brillo Box, Berkeley, University of California Press.
Danto, A. (2004), La transfiguración del lugar común, Buenos Aires, Paidós.
Danto, A. (2005), “Tres cajas de brillo: cuestiones de estilo” en Danto, A., Chateau, D. et al., Estética después del fin del arte: Ensayos sobre Arthur Danto, Madrid, Antonio Machado, pp. 19-40.
Danto, A. (2006), Después del fin del arte: el arte contemporáneo y el linde de la historia, Buenos Aires, Paidós.
Dickie, G. (1969), “Defining Art”, American Philosophical Quarterly, 6 (3), pp. 253-256.
Dickie, G. (1974), Art and the Aesthetic: An Institutional Analysis, Ithaca, Cornell University Press.
Dickie, G. (2005), El círculo del arte, Buenos Aires, Paidós.
Elgin, C. (1983), With Reference to Reference, Cambridge, Hackett.
Elgin, C. (1991), “What Goodman Leaves out”, Journal of Aesthetic Education, 25 (1), pp. 89-96.
Elgin, C. (2001), “The Legacy of Nelson Goodman”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 62 (3), pp. 679-690.
Elgin, C. (2011), “Making Manifest: The Role of Exemplification in the Sciences and the Arts”, Principia, pp. 399-413.
Giovanelli, A. (2010), “Goodman’s Aesthetics” en Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Recuperado de http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2010/entries/goodman-aesthetics/ (05-04-2017).
Goodman, N. (1972), Problems and Projects, Indianapolis, Bobbs-Merrill.
Goodman, N. (1976), Los lenguajes del arte, Barcelona, Seix Barral.
Goodman, N. (1990), Maneras de hacer mundos, Madrid, Visor.
Goodman, N. (1995), De la mente y otras materias, Madrid, Visor.
Goodman, N. y Elgin, C. (1986), “Interpretation and Identity: Can the Work Survive the World?”, Critical Inquiry, 12 (3), pp. 564-575.
Goodman, N. y Elgin, C. (1988), Reconceptions in Philosophy and Other Arts and Sciences, Indianapolis, Hackett.
Kennick, W. (1958), “Does Traditional Aesthetics Rest on a Mistake?”, Mind, 67, pp. 317-334.
Levinson, J. (1979), “Defining Art Historically” en Lamarque, P. y Olsen, S. H. (eds.) (2004), Aesthetics and the Philosophy of Art: The Analytic Tradition, Massachusetts, Blackwell, pp. 35-46.
Levinson, J. (1989), “Refining Art Historically”, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 47 (1), pp. 21-33.
Levinson, J. (1993), “Extending Art Historically”, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 51 (3), pp. 411-423.
Mandelbaum, M. (1965), “Family Resemblances and Generalizations Concerning the Arts”, American Philosophical Quarterly, 2 (3), pp. 219-228.
Pérez Carreño, F. (1996), “Nelson Goodman” en Bozal, V. (ed.), Historia de las ideas estéticas y de las teorías artísticas contemporáneas, vol. II, Madrid, Visor, pp. 106-111.
Vermuelen, I., Brun, G. y Baumberger, Ch. (2009), “Five Ways of (not) Defining Exemplification”, en Ernst, G., Scholtz, O. y Steinbrennen, J. (eds.) (2009), From Logic to Art: Themes from Nelson Goodman, Fráncfort, Ontos.
Weitz, M. (1956), “The Role of Theory in Aesthetics”, Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 15 (1), pp. 27-35.
Wollheim, R. (1970), “Nelson Goodman’s Languages of Art”, The Journal of Philosophy, 67 (16), pp. 531-539.
Wollheim, R. (1972), El arte y sus objetos, Barcelona, Seix Barral.
Wollheim, R. (1978), “Are the Criteria of Identity that Hold for a Work of Art in Different Arts Aesthetically Relevant?”, Ratio, 20, pp. 29-48.
Ziff, P. (1953) “The Task of Defining a Work of Art”, The Philosophical Review, 62 (1), pp. 58-78.