Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-45l2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T07:40:26.934Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Normative and scientific approaches to the understanding and evaluation of art

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 March 2013

Jonathan Gilmore
Jonathan Gilmore*
Affiliation:
Philosophy Department, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027. jsg8@columbia.eduwww.jonathangilmore.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The psycho-historical framework proposes that appreciators' responses to art vary as a function of their sensitivity to its historical dimensions. However, the explanatory power of that framework is limited insofar as it assimilates relevantly different kinds of appreciation and insofar as it eschews a normative account of when a response succeeds in qualifying as an appreciation of art qua art.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 36 , Issue 2 , April 2013 , pp. 144 - 145
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Budd, M. (1995) Values of art: Pictures, poetry and music. Allen Lane/The Penguin Press.Google Scholar
Cutting, J. E. (2006) The mere exposure effect and aesthetic preference. In: New directions in aesthetics, creativity and the psychology of art, ed. Locher, P., Martindale, C. & Dorfmann, L., pp. 33–46. Baywood.Google Scholar
Davies, S. (1991a) Definitions of art. Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilmore, J. (2011) A functional view of artistic evaluation. Philosophical Studies 155(2):289–305. DOI: 10.1007/s11098-010-9570-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruger, J., Wirtz, D., Van, Boven, L. & Altermatt, T. W. (2004) The effort heuristic. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 40(1):91–98. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-1031(03)00065-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar