毕竟,马戈利斯对韦茨艺术定义的质疑是什么?

Aili Whalen
{"title":"毕竟,马戈利斯对韦茨艺术定义的质疑是什么?","authors":"Aili Whalen","doi":"10.19079/eajp.2.2.57","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article analyzes Joseph Margolis’ criticism of Morris Weitz’ definition of art with an eye to sorting out where, precisely, their differences lie. In particular, it focuses on their differing ideas of what an “open” and “closed” definition of art amounts to and what sort of entity art is. It concludes with the suggestion that differences in metaphysical worldview, rather than differences in how they view what kinds of entities should count as art, account for the discrepancy in their views.","PeriodicalId":300319,"journal":{"name":"East Asian Journal of Philosophy","volume":"42 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What, After All, Is Margolis’ Problem With Weitz’ Definition of Art?\",\"authors\":\"Aili Whalen\",\"doi\":\"10.19079/eajp.2.2.57\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article analyzes Joseph Margolis’ criticism of Morris Weitz’ definition of art with an eye to sorting out where, precisely, their differences lie. In particular, it focuses on their differing ideas of what an “open” and “closed” definition of art amounts to and what sort of entity art is. It concludes with the suggestion that differences in metaphysical worldview, rather than differences in how they view what kinds of entities should count as art, account for the discrepancy in their views.\",\"PeriodicalId\":300319,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"East Asian Journal of Philosophy\",\"volume\":\"42 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"East Asian Journal of Philosophy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.19079/eajp.2.2.57\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"East Asian Journal of Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.19079/eajp.2.2.57","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文分析了约瑟夫·马戈利斯对莫里斯·韦茨对艺术的定义的批评,并试图找出他们的不同之处。它特别关注他们对艺术的“开放”和“封闭”定义的不同看法,以及艺术是什么样的实体。它的结论是,形而上学世界观的差异,而不是他们如何看待哪种实体应该被视为艺术的差异,解释了他们观点的差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
What, After All, Is Margolis’ Problem With Weitz’ Definition of Art?
This article analyzes Joseph Margolis’ criticism of Morris Weitz’ definition of art with an eye to sorting out where, precisely, their differences lie. In particular, it focuses on their differing ideas of what an “open” and “closed” definition of art amounts to and what sort of entity art is. It concludes with the suggestion that differences in metaphysical worldview, rather than differences in how they view what kinds of entities should count as art, account for the discrepancy in their views.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信