A Critique of Levinson

Aporia, Vol. 16, No. 1, p. 29, 2006

20 Pages Posted: 21 May 2010

Date Written: 2006

Abstract

In this article I present an analysis of Levinson’s historical definition of art and then assess the relevant objections. This analysis is threefold, since I consider three different types of objections to Levinson: those regarding the ur-arts, the implausibility of an intrinsic recursive definition, and the disadvantages of an intentionalist-historicist account. In culmination, I argue that, although Levinson’s historical definition of art seems to defeat many of the objections that have been raised against it (and is not therefore irreparable), his definition ultimately fails to address a contradiction within his intentionalist-historicist framework, specifically that between a proprietary right and the liberalized version of regard-as-a-work-of-art.

Suggested Citation

Dreveskracht, Ryan D., A Critique of Levinson (2006). Aporia, Vol. 16, No. 1, p. 29, 2006, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1611841

Ryan D. Dreveskracht (Contact Author)

University of Washington ( email )

Seattle, WA 98195
United States

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
40
Abstract Views
288
PlumX Metrics