The Problem of Non‐Perceptual Art
Identifieur interne : 001916 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 001915; suivant : 001917The Problem of Non‐Perceptual Art
Auteurs : James ShelleySource :
- The British Journal of Aesthetics [ 0007-0904 ] ; 2003-10.
Abstract
Consider the following three propositions: (R) Artworks necessarily have aesthetic properties that are relevant to their appreciation as artworks. (S) Aesthetic properties necessarily depend, at least in part, on properties perceived by means of the five senses. (X) There exist artworks that need not be perceived by means of the five senses to be appreciated as artworks. The independent plausibility and apparent joint inconsistency of these three propositions give rise to what I refer to as ‘the problem of non‐perceptual art’. Assuming that the propositions are independently plausible and jointly inconsistent, there will be three ways of solving the problem: you may affirm (R) and (S) while denying (X); you may affirm (S) and (X) while denying (R); or you may affirm (R) and (X) while denying (S). The first of these, once the orthodox solution, has been displaced in recent years by the second. The third has never really been defended. I defend it here. If successful, my defence will have shown that there is reason to deny the existence of non‐aesthetic art and no reason to believe that art is not essentially aesthetic.
Url:
DOI: 10.1093/bjaesthetics/43.4.363
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:C155EB86B03E3E77BB6E545A9AC62B1A077D0C98Le document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">The Problem of Non‐Perceptual Art</title><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Shelley, James" sort="Shelley, James" uniqKey="Shelley J" first="James" last="Shelley">James Shelley</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Philosophy, 6080 Haley Center, Auburn University, AL 36849, USA. Email: shelljr@auburn.edu</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:C155EB86B03E3E77BB6E545A9AC62B1A077D0C98</idno><date when="2003" year="2003">2003</date><idno type="doi">10.1093/bjaesthetics/43.4.363</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/C155EB86B03E3E77BB6E545A9AC62B1A077D0C98/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">001916</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">The Problem of Non‐Perceptual Art</title><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Shelley, James" sort="Shelley, James" uniqKey="Shelley J" first="James" last="Shelley">James Shelley</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Philosophy, 6080 Haley Center, Auburn University, AL 36849, USA. Email: shelljr@auburn.edu</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j">The British Journal of Aesthetics</title><title level="j" type="abbrev">Brit J Aesthetics</title><idno type="ISSN">0007-0904</idno><idno type="eISSN">1468-2842</idno><imprint><publisher>Oxford University Press</publisher><date type="published" when="2003-10">2003-10</date><biblScope unit="volume">43</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">4</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="363">363</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="378">378</biblScope></imprint><idno type="ISSN">0007-0904</idno></series><idno type="istex">C155EB86B03E3E77BB6E545A9AC62B1A077D0C98</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1093/bjaesthetics/43.4.363</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">0007-0904</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">Consider the following three propositions: (R) Artworks necessarily have aesthetic properties that are relevant to their appreciation as artworks. (S) Aesthetic properties necessarily depend, at least in part, on properties perceived by means of the five senses. (X) There exist artworks that need not be perceived by means of the five senses to be appreciated as artworks. The independent plausibility and apparent joint inconsistency of these three propositions give rise to what I refer to as ‘the problem of non‐perceptual art’. Assuming that the propositions are independently plausible and jointly inconsistent, there will be three ways of solving the problem: you may affirm (R) and (S) while denying (X); you may affirm (S) and (X) while denying (R); or you may affirm (R) and (X) while denying (S). The first of these, once the orthodox solution, has been displaced in recent years by the second. The third has never really been defended. I defend it here. If successful, my defence will have shown that there is reason to deny the existence of non‐aesthetic art and no reason to believe that art is not essentially aesthetic.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>oup</corpusName><author><json:item><name>James Shelley</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Philosophy, 6080 Haley Center, Auburn University, AL 36849, USA. Email: shelljr@auburn.edu</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>Paper</value></json:item></subject><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><abstract>Consider the following three propositions: (R) Artworks necessarily have aesthetic properties that are relevant to their appreciation as artworks. (S) Aesthetic properties necessarily depend, at least in part, on properties perceived by means of the five senses. (X) There exist artworks that need not be perceived by means of the five senses to be appreciated as artworks. The independent plausibility and apparent joint inconsistency of these three propositions give rise to what I refer to as ‘the problem of non‐perceptual art’. Assuming that the propositions are independently plausible and jointly inconsistent, there will be three ways of solving the problem: you may affirm (R) and (S) while denying (X); you may affirm (S) and (X) while denying (R); or you may affirm (R) and (X) while denying (S). The first of these, once the orthodox solution, has been displaced in recent years by the second. The third has never really been defended. I defend it here. If successful, my defence will have shown that there is reason to deny the existence of non‐aesthetic art and no reason to believe that art is not essentially aesthetic.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>7.72</score><pdfVersion>1.4</pdfVersion><pdfPageSize>433.72 x 662 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>false</refBibsNative><keywordCount>1</keywordCount><abstractCharCount>1135</abstractCharCount><pdfWordCount>7566</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>43047</pdfCharCount><pdfPageCount>16</pdfPageCount><abstractWordCount>185</abstractWordCount></qualityIndicators><title>The Problem of Non‐Perceptual Art</title><genre><json:string>research-article</json:string></genre><host><volume>43</volume><pages><last>378</last><first>363</first></pages><issn><json:string>0007-0904</json:string></issn><issue>4</issue><genre></genre><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><eissn><json:string>1468-2842</json:string></eissn><title>The British Journal of Aesthetics</title></host><categories><wos><json:string>HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY</json:string></wos></categories><publicationDate>2003</publicationDate><copyrightDate>2003</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1093/bjaesthetics/43.4.363</json:string></doi><id>C155EB86B03E3E77BB6E545A9AC62B1A077D0C98</id><fulltext><json:item><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><extension>pdf</extension><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/C155EB86B03E3E77BB6E545A9AC62B1A077D0C98/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><extension>zip</extension><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/C155EB86B03E3E77BB6E545A9AC62B1A077D0C98/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/C155EB86B03E3E77BB6E545A9AC62B1A077D0C98/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">The Problem of Non‐Perceptual Art</title><respStmt xml:id="ISTEX-API" resp="Références bibliographiques récupérées via GROBID" name="ISTEX-API (INIST-CNRS)"></respStmt></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>Oxford University Press</publisher><availability><p>OUP</p></availability><date>2003</date></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="inbook"><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">The Problem of Non‐Perceptual Art</title><author><persName><forename type="first">James</forename><surname>Shelley</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Philosophy, 6080 Haley Center, Auburn University, AL 36849, USA. Email: shelljr@auburn.edu</affiliation></author></analytic><monogr><title level="j">The British Journal of Aesthetics</title><title level="j" type="abbrev">Brit J Aesthetics</title><idno type="JournalID">aesthj</idno><idno type="pISSN">0007-0904</idno><idno type="eISSN">1468-2842</idno><imprint><publisher>Oxford University Press</publisher><date type="published" when="2003-10"></date><biblScope unit="volume">43</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">4</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="363">363</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="378">378</biblScope></imprint></monogr><idno type="istex">C155EB86B03E3E77BB6E545A9AC62B1A077D0C98</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1093/bjaesthetics/43.4.363</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><creation><date>2003</date></creation><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage><abstract xml:lang="en"><p>Consider the following three propositions: (R) Artworks necessarily have aesthetic properties that are relevant to their appreciation as artworks. (S) Aesthetic properties necessarily depend, at least in part, on properties perceived by means of the five senses. (X) There exist artworks that need not be perceived by means of the five senses to be appreciated as artworks. The independent plausibility and apparent joint inconsistency of these three propositions give rise to what I refer to as ‘the problem of non‐perceptual art’. Assuming that the propositions are independently plausible and jointly inconsistent, there will be three ways of solving the problem: you may affirm (R) and (S) while denying (X); you may affirm (S) and (X) while denying (R); or you may affirm (R) and (X) while denying (S). The first of these, once the orthodox solution, has been displaced in recent years by the second. The third has never really been defended. I defend it here. If successful, my defence will have shown that there is reason to deny the existence of non‐aesthetic art and no reason to believe that art is not essentially aesthetic.</p></abstract><textClass><keywords scheme="keyword"><list><head>heading</head><item><term>Paper</term></item></list></keywords></textClass></profileDesc><revisionDesc><change when="2003-10">Published</change><change xml:id="refBibs-istex" who="#ISTEX-API" when="2016-1-2">References added</change></revisionDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><extension>txt</extension><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/C155EB86B03E3E77BB6E545A9AC62B1A077D0C98/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="corpus oup" wicri:toSee="no header"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:docType PUBLIC="-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v2.3 20070202//EN" URI="journalpublishing.dtd" name="istex:docType"></istex:docType><istex:document><article xml:lang="en" article-type="research-article"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">aesthj</journal-id><journal-id journal-id-type="hwp">aesthj</journal-id><journal-title>The British Journal of Aesthetics</journal-title><abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">Brit J Aesthetics</abbrev-journal-title><issn pub-type="ppub">0007-0904</issn><issn pub-type="epub">1468-2842</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Oxford University Press</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1093/bjaesthetics/43.4.363</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="other">430363</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Paper</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>The Problem of Non‐Perceptual Art</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Shelley</surname><given-names>James</given-names></name><xref rid="AFF1">1</xref></contrib><aff><target target-type="aff" id="AFF1"></target><label>1</label>Department of Philosophy, 6080 Haley Center, Auburn University, AL 36849, USA. Email: <ext-link xlink:href="shelljr@auburn.edu" ext-link-type="email"> shelljr@auburn.edu</ext-link></aff></contrib-group><pub-date pub-type="ppub"><month>10</month><year>2003</year></pub-date><volume>43</volume><issue>4</issue><fpage>363</fpage><lpage>378</lpage><permissions><copyright-statement>Copyright British Society of Aesthetics Press 2003</copyright-statement><copyright-year>2003</copyright-year></permissions><abstract xml:lang="en"><p>Consider the following three propositions: (R) Artworks necessarily have aesthetic properties that are relevant to their appreciation as artworks. (S) Aesthetic properties necessarily depend, at least in part, on properties perceived by means of the five senses. (X) There exist artworks that need not be perceived by means of the five senses to be appreciated as artworks. The independent plausibility and apparent joint inconsistency of these three propositions give rise to what I refer to as ‘the problem of non‐perceptual art’. Assuming that the propositions are independently plausible and jointly inconsistent, there will be three ways of solving the problem: you may affirm (R) and (S) while denying (X); you may affirm (S) and (X) while denying (R); or you may affirm (R) and (X) while denying (S). The first of these, once the orthodox solution, has been displaced in recent years by the second. The third has never really been defended. I defend it here. If successful, my defence will have shown that there is reason to deny the existence of non‐aesthetic art and no reason to believe that art is not essentially aesthetic.</p></abstract><custom-meta-wrap><custom-meta><meta-name>hwp-legacy-fpage</meta-name><meta-value>363</meta-value></custom-meta><custom-meta><meta-name>hwp-legacy-dochead</meta-name><meta-value>Paper</meta-value></custom-meta></custom-meta-wrap></article-meta></front></article></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>The Problem of Non‐Perceptual Art</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" lang="en" contentType="CDATA"><title>The Problem of Non‐Perceptual Art</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">James</namePart><namePart type="family">Shelley</namePart><affiliation>Department of Philosophy, 6080 Haley Center, Auburn University, AL 36849, USA. Email: shelljr@auburn.edu</affiliation></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="research-article">research-article</genre><subject><genre>heading</genre><topic>Paper</topic></subject><originInfo><publisher>Oxford University Press</publisher><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2003-10</dateIssued><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2003</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><internetMediaType>text/html</internetMediaType></physicalDescription><abstract lang="en">Consider the following three propositions: (R) Artworks necessarily have aesthetic properties that are relevant to their appreciation as artworks. (S) Aesthetic properties necessarily depend, at least in part, on properties perceived by means of the five senses. (X) There exist artworks that need not be perceived by means of the five senses to be appreciated as artworks. The independent plausibility and apparent joint inconsistency of these three propositions give rise to what I refer to as ‘the problem of non‐perceptual art’. Assuming that the propositions are independently plausible and jointly inconsistent, there will be three ways of solving the problem: you may affirm (R) and (S) while denying (X); you may affirm (S) and (X) while denying (R); or you may affirm (R) and (X) while denying (S). The first of these, once the orthodox solution, has been displaced in recent years by the second. The third has never really been defended. I defend it here. If successful, my defence will have shown that there is reason to deny the existence of non‐aesthetic art and no reason to believe that art is not essentially aesthetic.</abstract><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>The British Journal of Aesthetics</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="abbreviated"><title>Brit J Aesthetics</title></titleInfo><identifier type="ISSN">0007-0904</identifier><identifier type="eISSN">1468-2842</identifier><identifier type="JournalID">aesthj</identifier><identifier type="JournalID-hwp">aesthj</identifier><part><date>2003</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>43</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>4</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>363</start><end>378</end></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">C155EB86B03E3E77BB6E545A9AC62B1A077D0C98</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1093/bjaesthetics/43.4.363</identifier><accessCondition type="use and reproduction" contentType="Copyright">Copyright British Society of Aesthetics Press 2003</accessCondition><recordInfo><recordContentSource>OUP</recordContentSource></recordInfo></mods></metadata><enrichments><istex:catWosTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/C155EB86B03E3E77BB6E545A9AC62B1A077D0C98/enrichments/catWos"><teiHeader><profileDesc><textClass><classCode scheme="WOS">HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY</classCode></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader></istex:catWosTEI></enrichments><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Musique/explor/MozartV1/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 001916 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 001916 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Musique
|area= MozartV1
|flux= Istex
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:C155EB86B03E3E77BB6E545A9AC62B1A077D0C98
|texte= The Problem of Non‐Perceptual Art
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.20. |  |