Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T20:36:25.726Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Presentational Objects and their Interpretation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 January 2010

Extract

The work of artists is to make works of art, and of theorists theoretical works. In our ordinary dealings with such things, elusive as ontologists may find them, we seem to know well enough in either instance how we should regard and handle them. Ontological questions are none the less raised: what species of entity may they be? It is a question, I confess, to which I could never respond with much enthusiasm. My own interest in art is more ordinary; I care about paintings and poems, about what serves to make them good or bad, about how we should look at or read them. Yet it may prove after all that the two issues are not wholly unrelated.

Type
Papers
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Philosophy and the contributors 1972

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 147 note 1 Philosophical Investigations, I, § 373.Google Scholar

page 149 note 1 Wollheim, R., Art and Its Objects, p. 3.Google Scholar

page 152 note 1 Johnson, Samuel, Plays of William ShakespeareGoogle Scholar, Note on Hamlet, iv, v, 84.Google Scholar

page 152 note 2 Op. cit., p. 62.

page 152 note 3 A portico is very different from a temple front. The former presents no special problem. Gibbs himself had handled it wholly comfortably in his little chapel of St Peter's, Vere Street. The attempt to combine a steeple with a temple front is quite another matter, a temptation that was understandably strong. That can help to make Gibbs's failure intelligible; it could not possibly transform it into success. And, it seems, the pediment was anyway a feature Gibbs was never happy with. With no temple front, instead a semi-circular portico, in the west facade, it is the one inept feature marring the otherwise exquisite church of St Mary-le-Strand. And the podium-like ground floor of the Radcliffe Camera hardly does better.

page 153 note 1 In my paper ‘The excellence of Form in Works of Art’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, LXXI, 19711972, pp. 1329.Google Scholar

page 154 note 1 The Principles of Art, p. 150.Google Scholar

page 154 note 2 Op. cit., vii, iv.

page 155 note 1 ‘Aesthetic Concepts’, British Journal of Aesthetics, x, iv, 1970, pp. 303–22.Google Scholar

page 156 note 1 Cf. Savile, Anthony, ‘The Place of Intention in the Concept of Art’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, LXIX, 19681969, p. 116.Google Scholar

page 159 note 1 Op. cit., p. 76

page 162 note 1 Op. cit., pp. 10–11