Abstract
The chapter begins with a brief overview of the contemporary trends in analytic approach to deal with philosophical questions concerning art, in general, and literature, in particular. Such concern with the analyses and clarification of concepts has played an important role though it has been argued that such an approach has serious limitations in coming out with fresh insights into the nature of art and literature. While there is an attempt to bring out the salient points arrived at by such analytic approach, it also warrants the need to adopt a more comprehensive and synoptic approach. It is thus necessary to understand the creative product as an autonomous domain. This also points to questions concerning the literary text and its meaning, its relation to life and morals and aesthetic emotions and their experience.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
Questions relating to the nature of art and beauty date back though to the times of Socrates and Plato.
- 2.
Weitz (1956) draws a distinction between “criterion of excellence” and “criterion of recognition”.
References
Beardsley, M. C. (1978). The aesthetic point of view. In J. Margolis (Ed.), Philosophy looks at the arts. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Dickie, G. (1971). Aesthetics: An introduction. New York: Bobbs-Merrill.
Gallie, W. B. (1956). Art as an essentially contested concept. The Philosophical Quarterly, 6, 97–114.
Hampshire, S. (1970 Reprint). Logic and appreciation. In W. Elton (Ed.), Aesthetics and language (pp. 161–169). Oxford: Blackwell.
Hanfling, O. (1995, January). Art, artifacts and function. Philosophical Investigation, 18, 1.
Hermeren, G. (1995, June). Art and life: Models for understanding music. The Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 73(2).
Kennick, W. E. (1958). Does traditional aesthetics rest on a mistake? Mind, 67, 317–334.
Langer, S. K. (1953). Feeling and form. New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Lord, C. (1987). Indexicality, not circularity: Dickie’s new definition of art. The Journal of Aesthetics andArt Criticism, XIV(3), 229–232.
Mandelbaum, M. (1979). Family resemblances and generalizations concerning the arts. In M. Rader (Ed.), A modern book of esthetics (5th ed.). Rinehart and Winston: Holt.
Margolis, J. (1980). Art and philosophy: Conceptual issues in esthetics. USA: Humanities Press.
McDonald, M. (1965). Some distinctive features of arguments used in criticism of the arts. In J. Stolnitz (Ed.), Aesthetics (pp. 98–112). New York: Macmillan.
Mothersill, M. (1967, August). ‘Unique’ as an aesthetic predicate. The Journal of Philosophy, LVIII(16), 393–437.
Rowe, M. W. (1991, July). Why art doesn’t have two senses? The British Journal of Aesthetics, 31(3), 217–219.
Shusterman, R. (1989). Analytic aesthetics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Tilghman, B. R. (1984). But is it art? Oxford: Blackwell.
Weitz, M. (1956). The role of theory in aesthetics. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticiism, 15, 27–35.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ghosh, R.K. (2018). Providing the Context. In: Essays in Literary Aesthetics. SpringerBriefs in Philosophy. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-2460-4_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-2460-4_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-13-2459-8
Online ISBN: 978-981-13-2460-4
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)