Verantwortung in der Kunst

Living reference work entry
Part of the Springer Reference Sozialwissenschaften book series (SRS)

Zusammenfassung

Gemäß dem radikalen Autonomismus erfüllen Kunstwerke nicht die Bedingungen, um für das, wofür sie moralisch kritisiert werden, verantwortlich zu sein. Kunstwerke werden für ihre moralische(n) Haltung(en) und/oder ihr moralisch-kognitives Potenzial kritisiert. Beide Möglichkeiten der moralischen Kritik an Kunstwerken kann man gegenüber Bedenken des radikalen Autonomismus verteidigen. Kunstwerke können somit sinnvoll moralisch kritisiert werden.

Schlüsselwörter

Radikaler Autonomismus Moralische Bewertbarkeit von Kunstwerken Moralische Haltung Moralisch-Kognitives Potenzial Ästhetischer Kognitivismus 

Literatur

  1. Anderson, James, und Jeffery T. Dean. 1998. Moderate autonomism. British Journal of Aesthetics 38(2): 150–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beardsley, Monroe. 1981. Aesthetics: Problems in the philosophy of criticism, 2. Aufl. Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hacket Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  3. Beardsmore, R.W. 1971. Art and morality, 1. Aufl. London: Macmillian.Google Scholar
  4. Booth, Wayne. 1998. Why banning ethical criticism is a serious mistake. Philosophy and Literature 22: 366–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carroll, Noёl. 1996. Moderate moralism. British Journal of Aesthetics 36(3): 223–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carroll, Noёl. 1998. Moderate moralism versus moderate autonomism. British Journal of Aesthetics 38(4): 419–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carroll, Noёl. 2000. Art and ethical criticism: An overview of recent directions of research. Ethics 110(2): 350–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carroll, Noёl. 2002. The Wheel of virtue: Art, literature, and moral. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 60(1): 3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carroll, Noël. 2008. Narrative and ethical life. In Art and ethical criticism, Hrsg. Garry L. Hagberg, 35–62. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  10. Conolly, Oliver. 2000. Ethicism and moderate moralism. British Journal of Aesthetics 40(3): 302–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Coplan, Amy. 2011. Understanding empathy: Its features and effects. In Empathy: Philosophical and psychological perspectives, Hrsg. Amy Coplan und Peter Goldie, 3–18. Oxford: Oxford University Pres.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Currie, Gregory. 1995. The moral psychology of fiction. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 73(2): 250–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Devereaux, Mary. 1998. Beauty and evil: The case of Leni Riefenstahl’s triumph of the will. In Aesthetics and ethics: Essays at the intersection, Hrsg. Jerrold Levinson, 1. Aufl., 227–256. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Devereaux, Mary. 2004. Moral judgement and works of art: The case of narrative literature. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 62(1): 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dickie, George. 1964. The myth of the aesthetic attitude. American Philosophical Quarterly 1(1): 56–65.Google Scholar
  16. Dickie, George. 1985. Evaluating art. British Journal of Aesthetics 25(1): 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Diffey, Terry. 1995. What can we learn from art? Australasian Journal of Philosophy 73(2): 204–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Foundas, Scott. 2015. Clint Eastwood’s walking wounded: From ‘Dirty Harry’ to ‘American Sniper? http://variety.com. Zugegriffen am 23.03.2015.
  19. French, David. 2015. American Sniper has created a cultural moment: Here’s why. http://www.nationalreview.com. Zugegriffen am 23.03.2015.
  20. Gass, William. 1987. Goodness knows nothing of beauty. Harper’s 274: 37–44.Google Scholar
  21. Gaut, Berys. 1993. Interpreting the arts: The patchwork theory. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 51(4): 597–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gaut, Berys. 1998. The ethical criticism of art. In Aesthetics and ethics: Essays at the intersection, Hrsg. Jerrold Levinson, 1. Aufl., 182–203. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Gaut, Berys. 2003. Art and knowledge. In The Oxford handbook of aesthetics, Hrsg. Jerrold Levinson, 1. Aufl., 436–450. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Gaut, Berys. 2007. Art, emotion and ethics, 1. Aufl. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Giovannelli, Alessandro. 2007. The ethical criticism of art: A new mapping of the territory. Philosophia 35: 117–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Griggs, Brandon. 2015. Why ‘American Sniper’ is a smash hit. http://edition.cnn.com. Zugegriffen am 23.03. 2015.
  27. Griggy, Brandon und Leopold Todd. 2015. What people get wrong about ‘American Sniper’. http://edition.cnn.com. Zugegriffen am 23.03.2015.
  28. Gordon, Robert. 2015. ‘American Sniper’s’ sinister philosophy: Pro-war propaganda wrapped in moral truth. http://www.salon.com. Zugegriffen am 23.03. 2015.
  29. Howell, Peter. 2015. Think before you shoot, Clint Eastwood says of war: Interview. http://www.thestar.com. Zugegriffen am 23.03.2015.
  30. Hume, David. 1992. Of the standard of taste. In Essays: Moral, political, and literary, Vol. I, Hrsg. Eugene F. Miller, 1. Aufl., 266–284. Darmstadt: Scientia Verlag Aalen.Google Scholar
  31. Jacobs, Matthew. 2015. Clint Eastwood says he and ‘American sniper’ are both ‘Anti-War’. http://www.huffingtonpost.com. Zugegriffen am 24.03.2015.
  32. Jacobson, Daniel. 1997. In praise of immoral art. Philosophical Topics 25(1): 155–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jacobson, Daniel. 2006. Ethical criticism and the vice of moderation. In Contemporary debates in aestehtics and the philosophy of art, Hrsg. Matthew Kieran, 1. Aufl., 342–355. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  34. John, Eileen. 2006. Artistic value and opportunistic moralism. In Contemporary debates in aesthetics and the philosophy of art, Hrsg. Matthew Kieran, 1. Aufl., 332–341. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  35. Kant, Immanuel. 1793. Über den Gemeinspruch. Berlinische Monatsschrift 22: 201–284.Google Scholar
  36. Kieran, Matthew. 1996. Art, imagination, and the cultivation of morals. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 54(4): 337–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kieran, Matthew. 2002. On obscenity: The thrill and repulsion of the morally prohibited. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 64(1): 31–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kieran, Matthew. 2003. Forbidden knowledge: The challenge of immoralism. In Art and morality, Hrsg. José Luis Bermúdez und Sebastian Gardner, 1. Aufl., 56–73. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  39. Kieran, Matthew. 2005. Revealing art, 1. Aufl. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Kieran, Matthew. 2006. Art, morality and ethics: on the (im)moral character of art works and inter-relations to artistic value. Philosophiy Compass 1(2): 129–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. McIver Lopes, Dominic. 2011. The myth of (non-aesthetic) artistic value. The Philosophical Quarterly 61(244): 518–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nagel, Thomas. 1970. The possibility of altriusm, 1. Aufl. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Nehamas, Alexander. 1986. What an author is. The Journal of Philosophy 83(11): 685–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nicholson, Amy. 2015. Entry 14: Clint Eastwood’s American Sniper is one of the most mendacious movies of 2014. http://www.slate.com. Zugegriffen am 23.03.2015.
  45. Nolte, John. 2015. ‘American Sniper’: Same lefts defaming Chris Kyle as ‘Killer’ wanted every Iraqi dead. http://www.breitbart.com. Zugegriffen am 23.03.2015.
  46. Novitz, David. 1987. Knowledge, fiction and imagination, 1. Aufl. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Nussbaum, Martha. 1990. Finely aware and richly responsible. In Love’s knowledge, Hrsg. Martha Nussbaum, 1. Aufl., 148–167. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Pitzke, Marc. 2015. Oscar-Kandidat ‚American Sniper’: Scharfschütze im Kreuzfeuer. http://www.spiegel.de. Zugegriffen am 23.03.2015.
  49. Platon. 1989. Der Staat, 11. Aufl. Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag.Google Scholar
  50. Pole, David. 1962. Morality and the assessment of literature. Philosophy 37(141): 193–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Posner, Richard. 1997. Against ethical criticism. Philosophy and Literature 21(1): 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Posner, Richard. 1998. Against ethical criticism: Part II. Philosophy and Literature 22(2): 394–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Schmalzried, Lisa Katharin. 2014. Kunst, Fiktion und Moral, 1. Aufl. Münster: mentis.Google Scholar
  54. Scholz, Oliver. 2001. Kunst, Erkenntnis und Verstehen. Eine Verteidigung einer kognitivistischen Ästhetik. In Wozu Kunst? Die Frage nach ihrer Funktion, Hrsg. Bernd Kleimann und Reinold Schmücker, 1. Aufl., 34–48. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
  55. Sidney, Philip. 1966. The defense of poetry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Stecker, Robert. 1994. Art interpretation. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 52(2): 193–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Stecker, Robert. 2005. The interaction of ethical and aesthetic value. British Journal of Aesthetics 45(2): 138–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Stolnitz, Jerome. 1992. On the Cognitive Triviality of Art. British Journal of Aesthetics 32(3): 191–200Google Scholar
  59. Stueber, Karsten. 2014. Empathy. In The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, Hrsg Edward N. Zalta, (Winter 2014 Edition). http://plato.stanford.edu
  60. Suebsaeng, Asawin. 2015. Oscar-nominated ‘American Sniper’ made Joe Biden cry. http://www.thedailybeast.com. Zugegriffen am 23.03.2015.
  61. Taibbi, Matt. 2015. ‘American Sniper’ is almost too dumb to criticize. http://www.rollingstone.com. Zugegriffen am 23.03.2015.
  62. Tolstoi, Leo. 1998. Was ist Kunst? Eine Studie, 1. Aufl. Schutterwald: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag.Google Scholar
  63. O’Hehir, Andrews. 2015. ‘American Sniper’ and the culture wars: why the movie’s not what you think it is. http://www.salon.com. Zugegriffen am 23.03.2015.
  64. Walton, Kendall. 1990. Mimesis as make-believe, 1. Aufl. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Walton, Kendall. 1994. Morals in fiction and fictional morality. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 68: 27–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wilde, Oscar. 2009. Das Bildnis des Dorian Gray, 1. Aufl. Frankfurt a.M.: Insel Taschenbuch.Google Scholar
  67. Wimsatt, William Kurtz und Monroe Beardsley. 1978. The intentional fallacy. In Philosophy looks at the arts, Hrsg. Joseph Margolis, 1. Aufl., 293–306. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  68. Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1996. Ethik, Leben, Glaube. In Ludwig Wittgenstein: Ein Reader, Hrsg. Anthony Kenny, 1. Aufl., 351–373. Stuttgart: Reclam.Google Scholar
  69. Zurcher, Anthony. 21.01.2015. American Sniper: Was Chris Kyle really a hero? http://www.bbc.com. Zugegriffen am 25.03.2015.

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philosophisches SeminarUniversität LuzernLuzernSchweiz

Personalised recommendations