Provenential Properties, Style, and the Aesthetic Value of History
Entrées d’index
Mots-clés : provenential properties, style, art history, aesthetic value, aesthetic appreciation
Texte intégral
1. Introduction
1Art history provides us with a wealth of captivating insights into the artworks we hold dear and their intricate histories of creation. Through the pages of Renaissance art books, we come to learn that the colossal block of marble, which Michelangelo skilfully transformed into the iconic sculpture David, had actually been forsaken by two previous artists who were originally tasked with utilizing it. This immense slab of marble remained untouched for a span of 25 years until Michelangelo commenced his work on it in 1501, ultimately fashioning it into an enduring masterpiece (Paolucci, 2006). Examinations of canvases utilizing x-ray technology by meticulous scholars reveal that numerous paintings, such as Raphael’s Portrait of Young Woman with Unicorn, have undergone substantial retouching and restoration efforts throughout history, resulting in their current appearance markedly diverging from their past iterations (Bonanni et al., 2010). Moreover, celebrated works like Leonardo’s Salvator Mundi or Jan van Eyck’s The Arnolfini’s Portrait bear evidence of pentimenti, indicating alterations made by the original artists. Transitioning to the domain of music, music historians have illuminated the fact that certain renowned compositions, widely attributed to specific composers, are in fact later forgeries. Notable instances include Mozart’s Adélaïde Concerto, which is actually a spurious creation by Marius Casadesus, and the renowned Albinoni Adagio in G minor, which, contrary to its title, was composed by Remo Giazotto in 1958 (Reece, 2022). Finally, literary critics have unveiled fascinating details concerning the work habits of notable writers. A case in point is Balzac, whose impressive ability to write with great speed is noteworthy. Balzac would dedicate extensive hours to writing and meticulously revise his work, covering typed proofs with numerous alterations and additions. As a result, the final version of his volumes often differed substantially from the original text (Zweig, 1958).
2These examples, along with others of a similar nature, offer persuasive evidence supporting the notion that a fundamental element in our connection with art lies in the importance of acquiring knowledge about the historical background of artworks. People are willing to crowd for hours in museum halls to partake in guided tours and learn stories about the works and their creators; alternatively, they eagerly seek out information about artworks’ history in travel books and brochures. Merely observing artworks in museums and art cities, even if they are undeniably beautiful and renowned, fails to satisfy their curiosity.
3But what renders the history of artworks so invaluable to us? Does this knowledge, which clearly captivates historians, also hold relevance in terms of the aesthetic appreciation and evaluation of art? A multitude of perspectives can be offered in response to these inquiries. In fact, despite the significance accorded to history by critics, curators, and audiences, philosophers remain divided concerning its aesthetic value. One could contend that a work’s provenance and historical context bear no influence on its aesthetic appreciation. If a work of art elicits satisfaction, pleases the senses, and resonates with us, its creator and temporal origin should be deemed aesthetically irrelevant. Arguments of this nature posit that historical and contextual circumstances lack inherent ‘aesthetic’ interest, although they may undeniably hold importance from biographical, historical, psychological, or sociological perspectives.
4In this paper, I propose a reconfiguration of the ongoing debate surrounding the aesthetic value of history. Specifically, I contend that this debate can be recast as a fundamental disagreement concerning the nature of properties that genuinely contribute to our aesthetic appreciation of art. Central to this discussion is the inquiry into whether context-dependent properties, which rely on the historical background of a work of art, should also be deemed aesthetic properties in the proper sense of the term. Furthermore, we must address whether these properties can directly engender aesthetic appreciation. Resolving these questions hinges, to a significant extent, upon our understanding of the term ‘aesthetic’ and its various connotations. This paper does not address this issue directly, though; rather, it delves into a nuanced exploration of specific examples of artworks’ properties. My aim is to scrutinize which of these properties possess aesthetic relevance and, in cases where not all properties meet this criterion, how one can discern the distinction. While certain properties inherently hold obvious aesthetic significance, as they command our attention during encounters with artworks, others do not, or not so obviously. These particular properties pertain to the provenance and historical background of the artwork.
5The paper comprises four main sections. Section 2 aims to provide clarity regarding the concepts of ‘manifest’ and ‘provenential’ properties of a work of art. By delineating these properties, a foundational understanding is established for subsequent discussions. In Section 3, the focus shifts towards examining two standard viewpoints found within the philosophical literature concerning the aesthetic value of artworks’ history, the formalist-empiricist approach and its contrasting counterpart, contextualism. Section 4 directs attention to the concept of style and its relationship to stylistic properties, which are considered a distinct subset of provenential properties. The paper concludes by affirming the aesthetic relevance of at least certain provenential properties, namely, those associated with style.
2. Manifest Properties and Provenential Properties
6Philosophers have devoted considerable attention to the role played in the appreciation of art by the contextually dependent properties of artworks. These properties establish connections between a work of art and its author, history, and origins, encompassing elements such as the artist’s intentions, societal artistic traditions, and the intellectual atmosphere of the time in which the artist lived and worked. Building upon the work of David Davies (2009, 2010), I shall term such properties ‘provenential properties’ and distinguish them from what I will call the manifest aesthetic properties of a work of art.
7By ‘manifest (aesthetic) properties’, I am specifically alluding to the aesthetic properties of a work that have traditionally been understood and typically form the basis of our aesthetic judgments or descriptions. These properties encompass qualities like “unified,” “balanced,” “integrated,” “serene,” “powerful,” “delicate,” “moving,” and “sentimental,” to cite some examples derived from the seminal work of Frank Sibley (2001). Manifest properties are manifested to a viewer during the immediate perceptual encounter with the artwork itself, such as when observing a painting or listening to a musical composition. Although these properties may not exist in the artwork in the same straightforward manner as non-aesthetic features like colours, shapes, or pitches, they are nonetheless perceived directly. For instance, we can visually discern the dynamism of a painting or audibly perceive the serenity of a sonata, even if it may require specialized training or heightened sensitivity on our part. While debates regarding the reducibility of manifest properties to non-aesthetic ones or their emergence and supervenience have been topics of debate in philosophical discourse, I will not delve into these complexities in this particular discussion. It is important to note, however, that manifest properties serve as a direct source of aesthetic appreciation, as they have a direct experiential impact on our appreciation of a work that possesses such properties.
8Provenential properties, on the other hand, pertain to the work’s history of creation and exemplify the specific historical-intentional relationship that connects an artwork to its origins. These properties encompass both relational aspects of the artwork’s history, such as “being in a 19th-century style,” “being a Baroque painting,” or “being a precursor of its time,” as well as more specific and typically non-relational features, such as “being the work of Caravaggio” or “being composed by Haydn.” The former relates to the broader historical and contextual milieu in which the artist’s activity took place, including preceding and contemporary artistic endeavours, while the latter focuses on the particulars of the artist’s creative process, such as the materials employed, the specific actions undertaken, and the sequence in which they were executed, as described by Davies (2010, p. 218). Provenential properties are intimately tied to the original artist’s creative endeavours, which ultimately give rise to the manifest properties that we recognize within the artwork.
9Due to their connection to the work’s history, provenential properties play a crucial role in determining the authenticity of an artwork, as authenticity is essentially determined by the presence of properties that testify to the work’s origin, contextual production, and the intentions of the creator. In this regard, provenential properties are instrumental in establishing the uniqueness of a specific artwork across various artistic mediums. While a painting may share identical manifest properties (for example, being lively, balanced, having a peculiar dynamism and so on), with a perfect copy or even with the product of Gregory Curry’s hypothetical ‘super-copier’ (1989), it is the possession of certain provenential properties that distinguishes it as a singular work of art.
10A common assumption, which will be critically examined here, is that provenential properties, unlike manifest properties, would lack direct aesthetic value because they typically require contextual information to be recognized, perceived, and appreciated. Unlike manifest properties that can be directly grasped in our aesthetic experience, provenential properties, such as the historical or societal context in which a work was created, would not contribute to the specific aesthetic character or qualities of the artwork. To this extent, it seems implausible to claim that the melancholic or serene character of a musical sonata is determined by the historical circumstances or societal factors surrounding its composition.
11This line of inquiry brings forth important questions regarding the nature of provenential properties and their potential as aesthetic properties. Can provenential properties, despite their reliance on historical context, impact our aesthetic appreciation of a work in a manner similar to what we attribute to manifest aesthetic properties? Furthermore, these issues highlight the broader and more complex challenge of delineating a principled distinction between questions about the aesthetics of artworks and questions about their histories.
3. Formalism and Contextualism
12Proponents who advocate for a sharp division between the realms of aesthetics and historical/contextual considerations, often align themselves with the classical school of thought known as formalism or, in subsequent philosophical discourse (Curry 1989), aesthetic empiricism1. Formalism asserts that the determining factors for the proper aesthetic appreciation of an artwork reside solely within its formal properties. These formal properties are typically understood as surface-level attributes that can be apprehended through visual or auditory perception.
13While the roots of formalism can be traced back to the seeds of thought planted in Kant’s notion of pure aesthetic judgment, it found greater prominence in the approaches of art critics from the late 19th and early 20th centuries, including Clive Bell (1913) and Roger Fry (1920). Philosophers such as Monroe Beardsley (1958) and Nick Zangwill (2001) have also made significant contributions to formalist discourse, further solidifying its presence in the realm of contemporary aesthetics.
14The formalist claim is commonly derived from two interrelated principles known as the “immediacy” thesis and the “disinterest” thesis (Binkley, 1970; Carroll, 2001). According to the immediacy thesis, any property that necessitates the use of knowledge for its apprehension is deemed aesthetically irrelevant. Similarly, the disinterest thesis posits that properties with practical import are also aesthetically irrelevant. Together, these theses propose that aesthetic appreciation is contingent upon the visual, auditory, or other sensory aspects of a work of art, disregarding any additional considerations. The more radical version of the idea, as seen in aesthetic empiricism, suggests that the history of a work, represented by its provenential properties, lacks inherent aesthetic value.
15Although there are some exceptions (see e.g., Jaworski, 2013), it has become increasingly prevalent to challenge the positions of formalism and aesthetic empiricism. This shift is primarily driven by the recognition that knowledge about a work’s history of making holds significant importance in practice and from various perspectives. Advocates of this view include proponents of cognitivism about art, critics concerned with the formalist view’s inability to account for the diverse values we find in art, and individuals who argue that it overlooks the multifaceted ways in which we engage with artworks, as demonstrated by the practices of critics and audiences.
16In opposition to formalism-empiricism, contextualism in the philosophy of art argues against the idea that the aesthetic value of a work can be entirely determined by its formal or perceptual properties. A key argument against formalism-empiricism is presented by Danto’s “argument from indiscernibles,” (1981) inspired by Warhol’s Brillo Boxes. Danto famously contends that form alone neither makes an artwork nor gives it whatever meaning it has (Danto 1981, p. 94–95). According to contextualism, what we appreciate in a work of art extends beyond our sensory perception. Art requires the identification of a relevant context to be brought into focus, including the circumstances under which a work was produced and the type of procedures involved. Contextualists view artworks as “historically embedded objects” (Levinson, 2007, p. 4) or “historical individuals” (Rohrbaugh, 2003, p. 177) that emerge from the specific inventions of individuals within particular times and places. From this perspective, artworks cannot possess art status, identity, aesthetic properties, or meaning independent of the contexts in which they are created and exist.
17While contextualism suggests that historical factors can contribute to the aesthetic value of art, a concern arises regarding the lack of a clear explanation for why this is the case. The assumption is that works of art, being “historically-embedded objects,” possess a distinct quality that necessitates considering their historical context. However, this raises the question of why the historical origins of other human-made objects do not play a significant role in their evaluation and appreciation. For instance, we assess a steak knife based on its functionality, regardless of its maker or origin, and we admire parquet flooring and wooden furniture for their tactile qualities without delving into their historical background. Similarly, we can praise the quality of a garment without necessarily knowing the designer. So, what sets art apart and makes historical and contextual factors crucial elements in its aesthetic experience?
18Furthermore, while the formalist-empiricist perspective, suggesting that works of art should be evaluated based on immediate perceptual qualities, is problematic and contradicts instances such as literature and conceptual art, this does not mean we should entirely reject the notion that there exists an inherent connection between aesthetic value and perception. In other words, it is still possible to uphold the significance of direct perception in aesthetics, asserting that the aesthetic value of a work is rooted in and accessible through the experience or perception of the work. Following Peter Lamarque (2010, p. 126), we can refer to this as a moderate “empiricist constraint,” emphasizing that there can be no aesthetic difference without a difference in our perceptual experience, and no experiential difference without a variation in our discerning response. It should be noted that in this approach, a property is aesthetic only if the subject can perceptually discern cases in which the property is present from those in which it is not, which is not the same as claiming that all knowledge is irrelevant to adequate aesthetic appreciation (as in standard empiricism).
19The focus of this paper, however, is not to present a direct argument in favour of the aforementioned claim, nor is it to critique contextualism or restate well-established objections to formalism. Instead, the goal is to examine the status of provenential properties once both radical formalism and contextualism have been dismissed. By doing so, indirect support can be provided for the moderate form of empiricism that is being advocated.
20Suppose we adopt the view that a property of an artwork holds aesthetic value if it has an impact on the recipient’s direct interaction with the work. Based on this premise, it becomes necessary to assert that provenential properties possess aesthetic value only if they can be demonstrated to have experiential value, meaning that they are directly perceptible in our engagement with the artwork and contribute to its proper appreciation. The argument I wish to propose here is that certain provenential properties operate precisely in this manner. Specifically, I argue that this applies to relational provenential properties, particularly those pertaining to an artwork’s style.
4. Style and Aesthetic Appreciation
21Style is commonly understood as the discernible visual manifestation of an object, derived from the principles of creativity, inspiration, and personal preference that govern its design (Gombrich, 1968). While style can encompass objects or actions beyond the realm of art, such as describing a kitchen tool as having a futuristic style or an individual as having an authoritarian style, its significance primarily lies within the arts, where it engenders numerous aesthetic discussions concerning creativity, aesthetic qualities, and the status of artistic objects (Ross, 2003).
22Richard Wollheim (1979) famously introduced a crucial distinction pertaining to the concept of style, wherein two senses of the term emerge: individual style, which denotes the distinctive style associated with a particular artist (e.g., ‘the style of Giotto’), and general style, which refers to the style associated with a particular period or collective of artists within that period (e.g., ‘Gothic Art’). Wollheim contends that individual style predominantly emerges from the “psychomotor character” of individual artists, which encompasses psychological traits that shape their artistic endeavours and lend their works (at least some of them) their artistic essence. This aspect of individual style is influenced by various factors, including the artist’s personal experiences, knowledge of art history, and capacity to imaginatively conceive novel approaches (Wollheim, 1979, p. 129-130).
23In contrast, general style represents a kind of shared element in the production of a particular era, something that transcends individual artists and is not contingent upon their artistic activities (Wollheim, 1979, p. 129-130). General style is associated with a distinct set of attributes that unify artworks or distinguish them by virtue of being particularly innovative, remarkable, or significant. This elucidates the existence of diverse forms of general style, such as “school” style linked to a specific artistic school, “period” style associated with a particular historical epoch, and “cultural” style affiliated with a specific culture. For instance, Baroque is an instance of a general period style, and one can identify various stylistic properties of Baroque art, including ornate decoration, dynamic movement, and asymmetrical patterns, that characterize such works.
24Of special relevance to our aims is the notion that stylistic properties, whether pertaining to an individual or a general category, are provenential properties. They are indeed contingent upon the specific context, linking a work to its creator, origin, and original setting, thereby bearing witness to the work’s history of creation. For this reason, Goodman (1975, 1978) underscores that stylistic properties play a vital role in the identification and authentication of artworks, as they are intrinsic to the correct ascription of authorship. According to Goodman, the recognition of a style enables us to attribute an artwork to a particular artist, period, region, and so forth (Goodman, 1975, p. 810). Style functions, in this sense, as an “individual or group signature”, offering insights into questions such as: Who was the creator? When was it made? Where did it originate? (Goodman 1975, p. 807). It assists us in situating the work within its appropriate contextual framework. In the literature, this perspective is known as the signature view of style, conceiving style as that which embodies the distinctive characteristics of an individual artist, region, period, school, or genre of art in a manner reminiscent of a signature.
25While the signature view offers a valuable perspective, it tends to overlook a crucial aspect: style serves not only as a means of identifying and categorizing the diverse array of works and approaches that define past art, but it can also embody the intentional focus of our aesthetic appreciation. Style, in itself, can represent a subject of aesthetic interest. Stylistic properties serve to translate the psychological, historical, and cultural character of an artist or era into perceptual features of the artwork, conveying abstract qualities through shapes, colours, pitches, or rhythms. In this sense, style operates akin to a symbolic system of sorts (Genova, 1979). If we employ Goodman’s (1968) framework of symbolization modes, we might assert that stylistic properties metaphorically express or exemplify a particular content through form, allowing that content to become evident and perceptible.
26Without entering into technicalities, two key points are crucial to clarify the notion of expression and its application to style. Firstly, according to Goodman, expression is a mode of reference that should not be confused with the manifestation of an artist’s personal emotions or the emotions evoked in the recipient. Expression, instead, functions as a form of metaphorical exemplification. It is important to note that exemplification, as defined by Goodman, involves both possessing and referring to a specific label (Goodman, 1968, p. 53). For instance, a colour sample that is green possesses and refers to the property labelled ‘green’, thus exemplifying green. In the case of expression, the properties exemplified by the symbol are acquired metaphorically (Goodman, 1968, p. 85). For example, an environmentally friendly building that is painted green metaphorically exemplifies the concept of ‘being green’. Secondly, with expression serving as a form of metaphorical exemplification, the properties or predicates expressed are always visually displayed in a manner that allows the symbol to both show and convey its intended meaning. In other words, the symbol not only signifies but also visually represents the properties or content it refers to.
27The intriguing thing about style is its ability to metaphorically exemplify predicates that describe the essence of a work, including its cultural and historical significance, in the manner described by Goodman. Stylistic properties possess and refer to the labels we employ to articulate and describe the work. Through the fusion of form and content, style translates the intangible properties of a work, such as its cultural and social meaning, into perceptible features that tangibly influence the aesthetic appreciation of the work (Genova, 1979, p. 319). In this way, style is intimately connected not only to the historical dimension but also to the aesthetic impact of an object. To borrow from Danto, one could say that style brings forth the history of artworks and renders it visible on the surfaces of the objects themselves.
28Stylistic properties, despite their contextual nature, are perceptually detectable and can be discerned through direct experiential encounters with a work. We are capable of determining whether a work belongs to a particular style simply by perceiving it, and conversely, we can also recognize when it does not belong to that style. For instance, we can identify and differentiate the distinct conducting manners of Herbert von Karajan and Riccardo Muti solely based on how they sound, assuming we have sufficient familiarity with both styles. Similarly, if we possess adequate knowledge of both the Impressionist and Fauvist styles, we can visually distinguish between the two simply by how the artworks look. This perceptual discernment plays a vital role in recognizing and appreciating the distinct qualities and attributes that define various artistic styles.
29Thus far, I have posited that style serves as a mechanism through which the inherent properties of an artwork can manifest themselves in our experiential encounters with said artwork. Ascribing the correct style to an artwork, however, is not merely crucial for identifying it as a unique artistic creation, but also for its aesthetic appreciation. Importantly, this argument goes beyond asserting that stylistic properties are helpful tools for making aesthetic judgments or that they provide clues about the potential aesthetic content of a work. Rather, it suggests that stylistic properties influence the quality of aesthetic appreciation by partially determining the observable aesthetic properties inherent in a work. In other words, in many cases, a work of art can only be properly perceived as melancholic, serene, elegant, or any other aesthetic quality once it is accurately interpreted within a specific stylistic framework. While this may appear to be a bold claim, its initial plausibility can be readily justified.
30For example, if we approach Beethoven’s symphonies through the lens of the Classical period, characterized by balance, clarity, and formal structures, his works may appear grand and sophisticated. We appreciate the meticulous craftsmanship, the adherence to established musical forms, and the elegant melodies that exemplify the Classical style. However, if we shift our perspective and interpret Beethoven’s symphonies as representatives of the Romantic period, known for its emotional expressiveness and individuality, our perception changes. Suddenly, the same symphonies that seemed grand and sophisticated in the Classical interpretation take on a more passionate and dramatic character. We become attuned to the intense emotional depth, the bold harmonic choices, and the moments of intense contrast and turbulence that define Beethoven’s Romantic expression. And if we judge Beethoven’s symphonies as transitional works between the Classical and Romantic eras, we find ourselves embracing a hybrid perspective. We recognize elements of both styles, appreciating how Beethoven pushed the boundaries of the Classical tradition while paving the way for the emotional and expressive language of the Romantic period.
31Similarly, the assertion that a painting is dynamic can be seen as contingent upon perceiving it within the framework of a particular style that emphasizes dynamism. Consider, for example, the Baroque style in painting. Baroque artworks are known for their dramatic compositions, dynamic forms, and the illusion of motion. When we encounter a painting created in the Baroque style, we bring an expectation and readiness to perceive it as dynamic. The use of diagonals, exaggerated poses, and intricate details contribute to the overall impression of dynamism. On the other hand, if we were to view the same painting through the lens of a different style, such as the Renaissance, our perception of its dynamism might diminish.
32These and other similar examples illustrate how our understanding artwork’s aesthetic properties is deeply influenced by the stylistic framework through which we engage with them. If my understanding is correct, this suggests that the manifest aesthetic properties of an artwork come into existence only when the work is perceived within a specific stylistic framework. Therefore, stylistic properties play a significant role in determining the predominant visible aesthetic qualities that a work possesses, as these qualities are contingent upon the style through which it is perceived. While the philosophical implications of this claim can be subject to debate, it aligns closely with the insights put forth by Kendall Walton (1970) regarding artistic categories.
33An additional, significant, aspect needs to be highlighted. While stylistic features can be perceptually discernible, it should not be assumed that they are easily or immediately discerned. In reality, styles are often challenging to identify without the necessary knowledge and training. Recognizing a work as belonging to a particular style requires a skill that is acquired through continuous learning and the development of an aesthetic sensibility attuned to distinguishing significant stylistic properties. For instance, if no one has ever provided an explanation or highlighted the distinctive characteristics of the Baroque style in painting compared to other styles such as Renaissance, I may have encountered numerous Baroque paintings in my life without ever recognizing them as such. Without the acquired knowledge, I may not perceive these works as representative of the Baroque style. The same principle applies to individual styles. If I lack familiarity with the style of Beethoven, having never consciously listened to any of his works or learned about his compositional techniques, I will not possess the ability to identify his style.
34Acquiring a deep understanding of an artistic style goes beyond mere knowledge and contextual information. It necessitates the ability to grasp and interpret this information through direct experiential engagement with artworks, allowing us to judge them within the framework of a specific style based on our perceptual observations. While historical facts and contextual details can aid in determining whether a painting belongs to the Baroque style, for instance, such information alone does not enable us to truly perceive and comprehend why this style is genuinely attributable to the work. To achieve that understanding, we must train our perceptive skills by immersing ourselves in a multitude of works that exemplify that style.
35Exposure to a wide range of artworks within a specific style, such as the Baroque, is an essential aspect of artistic training as it provides an extensive collection of examples that effectively sharpen our ability to discriminate and appreciate the stylistic properties inherent in the works. By actively comparing and contrasting different pieces, our perception becomes strengthened and refined, allowing us to discern the unique artistic qualities that only become evident through such deliberate juxtaposition. Becoming acquainted with a particular style equips us with the capacity to generalize and differentiate, enabling us to recognize its distinctive characteristics with greater precision. As viewers gain experience and expertise, they attain the ability to grasp deeper layers of meaning and significance within artworks. To fully comprehend and appreciate the stylistic features present in a work, one must have familiarity with numerous other works within the same style, thereby gaining an understanding of the unique visual language and conventions associated with it. This comprehensive knowledge enhances the viewer’s capacity to engage with the work, unlocking its nuanced messages and allowing for a more profound appreciation of its artistic merits.
5. Conclusion
36In this paper, I have argued that stylistic properties, as a subset of provenential properties, metaphorically exemplify various aspects of the work related to its origins and context of production. Although not immediately perceptible, stylistic properties can be discerned through direct experiential engagement with the artwork. I have contended that these properties hold aesthetic value by providing insights into the historical background of the work. Furthermore, I have claimed that stylistic properties play a role in determining the manifest aesthetic properties of the artwork. In certain relevant artistic cases, the identification of stylistic properties becomes crucial as it influences the perception of the artwork’s aesthetic qualities. This suggests that certain provenential properties, particularly those associated with style, are indeed relevant to the aesthetic appreciation of artworks.
37The underlying assumption in my argument is that in order for a property to hold aesthetic relevance, it must be perceptually discernible and have an impact on our experiential engagement with the artwork, ultimately influencing our appreciation and evaluation of the work. While aesthetic value cannot uniquely depend on visual or auditory aspects, there is an inherent connection between aesthetic differences and perceptual distinctions. The aesthetic value of a painting or a musical composition emerges when perceptual differences come into play. Our experiential engagement with the artwork is thus intertwined with its aesthetic value, although the relationship is not straightforward. While I have not explicitly provided a direct justification for this empiricist constraint in this paper, I believe that the case presented has offered a convincing argument that supports its plausibility.
Bibliographie
Des DOI sont automatiquement ajoutés aux références bibliographiques par Bilbo, l’outil d’annotation bibliographique d’OpenEdition. Ces références bibliographiques peuvent être téléchargées dans les formats APA, Chicago et MLA.
Format
- APA
- Chicago
- MLA
Beardsley, M. C. (1958). Aesthetics: Problems in the Philosophy of Criticism. Philosophy, 36(136), 80-81.
10.5040/9781350928565 :Bell, C. (1913). Art. Chatto & Windus.
Binkley, T. (1970). Piece: Contra Aesthetics. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 35, 265–277.
Bonanni, L. A., Seracini, M., Xiao X., Hockenberry, M., Cheng Costanzo, B., Shum, A., Teil, R., Speranza, A., Ishii, H. (2010). Tangible Interfaces for Art Restoration. International Journal of Creative Interfaces and Computer Graphics, 1(1), 54-66.
Carroll, N. (2001). Beyond Aesthetics. Cambridge University Press.
10.1017/CBO9780511605970 :Currie, G. (1989). An Ontology of Art. St. Martin’s Press.
Danto, A. C. (1981). The Transfiguration of the Commonplace. Harvard University Press.
10.1111/1540_6245.jaac33.2.0139 :Davies, D. (2009). The Artistic Relevance of Creativity. In K. Bardsley, D. Dutton, & M. Krausz (Eds.), The Idea of Creativity (pp. 213-233). Brill.
Davies, D. (2010). Multiple Instances and Multiple ‘Instances’. British Journal of Aesthetics, 50(4), 411-426.
Fry, R. (1920). Vision and Design. Chatto & Windus.
Genova, J. (1979). The Significance of Style. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 37(3), 315-324.
10.1111/1540_6245.jaac37.3.0315 :Gombrich, E. H. (1968). Style. International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, 15, 352-6.
Goodman, N. (1975). The Status of Style. Critical Inquiry, 1(4), 799-811.
10.1086/447816 :Goodman, N. (1978). Ways of Worldmaking. Hackett Publishing Company.
10.2307/1574670 :Goodman, N. (1968). Languages of Art: An Approach to a Theory of Symbols. The Bobbs-Merrill Company.
10.1007/978-3-7618-7287-1 :Jaworski, P. M. (2013). In Defense of Fakes and Artistic Treason: Why Visually-Indistinguishable Duplicates of Paintings Are Just as Good as the Originals. Journal of Value Inquiry, 47(4), 391-405.
Lamarque, P. (2010). Work and Object: Explorations in the Metaphysics of Art. Oxford University Press.
10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199577460.001.0001 :Levinson, J. (1979). Defining Art Historically. British Journal of Aesthetics, 19(3), 21-33.
10.1093/bjaesthetics/19.3.232 :Levinson, J. (2007). Aesthetic Contextualism. Postgraduate Journal of Aesthetics, 4(3), 1-12.
10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198767213.001.0001 :Paolucci, A. (2006). Michelangelo’s David. Harry N. Abrams.
Reece, F. (2021). Baroque Forgeries and the Public Imagination. In J. D. Jenkins (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Public Music Theory. Oxford University Press.
10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197551554.001.0001 :Rohrbaugh, G. (2003). Artworks as Historical Individuals. European Journal of Philosophy, 11(2), 177-205.
10.1111/1468-0378.00182 :Ross, S. (2003). Style in Art. In J. Levinson (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Aesthetics. Oxford University Press, 228.
10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199279456.001.0001 :Sibley, F. (2001). Approach to Aesthetics: Collected Papers on Philosophical Aesthetics, Oxford University Press.
10.1093/0198238991.001.0001 :Walton, K. (1970). Categories of Art. Philosophical Review, 8(1), 73-88.
Wollheim, R. (1979). Pictorial Style: Two Views. In B. Lang (Ed.), The Concept of Style (pp. 129-145). University of Pennsylvania Press.
Zangwill, N. (2001). The Metaphysics of Beauty. Cornell University Press.
10.7591/9781501711350 :Zweig, S. (1958). Balzac. Insel Verlag.
Notes de bas de page
1 Compared to formalism, aesthetic empiricism places greater emphasis on how aesthetic properties are discerned rather than on their specific nature. Currie’s (1989) formulation of aesthetic empiricism posits that the aesthetic value of a painting, for instance, can be perceived solely through visual observation. Any features that cannot be detected through direct perception are considered non-aesthetic. This approach extends to other art forms, incorporating other senses such as hearing in music and verbal understanding in literature.
Auteur
-
Lisa Giombini
Roma Tre University
Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Licence OpenEdition Books. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.
Dans le labyrinthe : nécessité, contingence et liberté chez Leibniz
Cours 2009 et 2010
Jacques Bouveresse Jean-Matthias Fleury (éd.)
2013