{"title":"Legislation: Work of Art or Artefact?","authors":"B. Roermund","doi":"10.1163/22112596-02002008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The title of Willem Witteveen’s 'De wet als kunstwerk' is an utter challenge for translators with a philosophical mindset. In English, the choice readily at hand for ‘kunstwerk’ would be ‘work of art’. But a different translation looms large. A ‘kunstwerk’ (in Dutch) also means a technically advanced construction in an already cultivated landscape. Let us call such constructions ‘artefacts’, to distinguish them from ‘works of art’. The latter are wrought by artists, the former by engineers. My question departs from the ambiguity inherent to ‘kunstwerk’ as it hovers between work of art and artefact. From a philosophical point of view, what, with regard to contemporary legislation, remains of the artefact as over and against the work of art?","PeriodicalId":38415,"journal":{"name":"Tilburg Law Review-Journal of International and Comparative Law","volume":"20 1","pages":"180-190"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2015-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/22112596-02002008","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Tilburg Law Review-Journal of International and Comparative Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/22112596-02002008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The title of Willem Witteveen’s 'De wet als kunstwerk' is an utter challenge for translators with a philosophical mindset. In English, the choice readily at hand for ‘kunstwerk’ would be ‘work of art’. But a different translation looms large. A ‘kunstwerk’ (in Dutch) also means a technically advanced construction in an already cultivated landscape. Let us call such constructions ‘artefacts’, to distinguish them from ‘works of art’. The latter are wrought by artists, the former by engineers. My question departs from the ambiguity inherent to ‘kunstwerk’ as it hovers between work of art and artefact. From a philosophical point of view, what, with regard to contemporary legislation, remains of the artefact as over and against the work of art?
Willem Witteveen的《De wet als kunstwerk》的标题对于具有哲学思维的翻译来说是一个彻底的挑战。在英语中,“kunstwerk”的意思是“艺术品”。但另一种不同的翻译却显得很突出。“kunstwerk”(荷兰语)也意味着在已经开垦的土地上建造技术先进的建筑。让我们把这样的建筑称为“人工制品”,以区别于“艺术品”。后者由艺术家打造,前者由工程师打造。我的问题脱离了“kunstwerk”固有的模糊性,因为它徘徊在艺术作品和人工制品之间。从哲学的角度来看,就当代立法而言,人工制品与艺术作品的对立还剩下什么?