Advertisement

Providing the Context

  • Ranjan K. Ghosh
Chapter
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Philosophy book series (BRIEFSPHILOSOPH)

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.

Keywords

Analytic approach Anti-intentionalism Definition Classificatory and evaluative senses 

References

  1. Beardsley, M. C. (1978). The aesthetic point of view. In J. Margolis (Ed.), Philosophy looks at the arts. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Dickie, G. (1971). Aesthetics: An introduction. New York: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
  3. Gallie, W. B. (1956). Art as an essentially contested concept. The Philosophical Quarterly, 6, 97–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hampshire, S. (1970 Reprint). Logic and appreciation. In W. Elton (Ed.), Aesthetics and language (pp. 161–169). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  5. Hanfling, O. (1995, January). Art, artifacts and function. Philosophical Investigation, 18, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hermeren, G. (1995, June). Art and life: Models for understanding music. The Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 73(2).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kennick, W. E. (1958). Does traditional aesthetics rest on a mistake? Mind, 67, 317–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Langer, S. K. (1953). Feeling and form. New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  9. Lord, C. (1987). Indexicality, not circularity: Dickie’s new definition of art. The Journal of Aesthetics andArt Criticism, XIV(3), 229–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.Google Scholar
  11. Margolis, J. (1980). Art and philosophy: Conceptual issues in esthetics. USA: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
  12. 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.Google Scholar
  13. Mothersill, M. (1967, August). ‘Unique’ as an aesthetic predicate. The Journal of Philosophy, LVIII(16), 393–437.Google Scholar
  14. Rowe, M. W. (1991, July). Why art doesn’t have two senses? The British Journal of Aesthetics, 31(3), 217–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Shusterman, R. (1989). Analytic aesthetics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  16. Tilghman, B. R. (1984). But is it art? Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  17. Weitz, M. (1956). The role of theory in aesthetics. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticiism, 15, 27–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ranjan K. Ghosh
    • 1
  1. 1.Indian Council of Philosophical ResearchNew DelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations