Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T14:34:36.425Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Forgery and the Corruption of Aesthetic Understanding

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Sherri Irvin
Sherri Irvin*
Affiliation:
University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK73019, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In 1968, Nelson Goodman made an observation about artistic forgery that has never been fully appreciated, though his discussion of forgery has received plenty of philosophical attention. Goodman describes the case in which you, the viewer, are confronted with an original work and a forgery that is, for you, perceptually indistinguishable from it. On the basis of lab tests, you know which of the works is forged, but you can see no difference between them. Nonetheless, Goodman says, the knowledge that one of them is forged makes for an aesthetic difference between the works, for you, now. One reason is that this knowledge changes the way you look at the works, and the way you should look at them; it alters the sorts of scrutiny it is appropriate to apply. In fact, knowledge that one of the works is forged ‘assigns the present looking a role as training toward … perceptual discrimination’ (Goodman, 1976,105).

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 37 , Issue 2 , June 2007 , pp. 283 - 304
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2007

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

Arnheim, R. 1983. ‘On Duplication.’ In The Forger's Art: Forgery and the Phüosophy of Art, Dutton, D. ed. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Baxandall, M. 1985. Patterns of Intention: On the Historical Explanation of Pictures. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Beardsley, M. 1983. ‘Notes on Forgery.’ In The Forger's Art: Forgery and the Phüosophy of Art, Dutton, D. ed. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Bell, C. 1914. Art. London: Chatto and.Windus.Google Scholar
Currie, G. 1989. An Ontology of Art. New York: St. Martin's Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danto, A. 1973. ‘Artworks and Real Things.’ Theoria 39 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dutton, D. 1983. ‘Artistic Crimes.’ In The Forger's Art: Forgery and the Philosophy of Art, Dutton, D. ed. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Eliot, T.S. 1948. ‘Tradition and the Individual Talent.’ In The Sacred Wood: Essays on Poetry and Criticism, 6th ed. London: Methuen & Co. Ltd. First published in 1920.Google Scholar
Fry, R. 1926. Transformations: Critical and Speculative Essays on Art. London: Chatto and Windus.Google Scholar
Goodman, N. 1976. Languages of Art, 2nd ed. Indianapolis: Hackett. First published in 1968.Google Scholar
Goodman, N. 1978. ‘Replies.’ Erkenntnis 12 153-79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Irvin, S. 2005. ‘The Artisfs Sanction in Contemporary Art.’ Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 63 315–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kulka, T. 1981. ‘The Artistic and the Aesthetic Value of Art‘ British Journal of Aesthetics 21 336–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kulka, T. 2005. ‘Forgeries and Art Evaluation: An Argument for Dualism in Aesthetics.’ Journal of Aesthetic Education 39 58–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landesman, P. 1999. ‘A 20th-Century Master Scam.’ The New York Times Magazine, July 18, 1999.Google Scholar
Lessing, A. 1965. ‘What Is Wrong with a Forgery?’ Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 23 461–71. Reprinted in The Forger's Art: Forgery and the Philosophy of Art, D. Dutton, ed. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983. (Page references are to the Dutton version.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, J. 1990. ‘Artworks and the Future.’ In Music, Art, and Metaphysics: Essays in Philosophical Aesthetics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Sagoff, M. 1976. ‘The Aesthetic Status of Forgeries.’ Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 35 169-80. Reprinted in The Forger's Art: Forgery and the Philosophy of Art, D. Dutton, ed. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983. (Page references are to the Dutton version.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sagoff, M. 1978a. ‘Historical Authenticity.’ Erkenntnis 12 83–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sagoff, M. 1978b. ‘On Restoring and Reproducing Art.’ Journal of Philosophy 75 453–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sagoff, M. 1981. ‘On the Aesthetic and Economic Value of Art‘ British Journal of Aesthetics 21 318–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savile, A. 1982. The Test of Time: An Essay in Philosophical Aesthetics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
L., Steinberg 1972. ‘Contemporary Art and the Plight of Its Public’ In Other Criteria: Confrontations with Twentieth Century Art. Oxford: Oxford University.Press.Google Scholar
K., Walton 1970. ‘Categories of Art.’ Philosophical Review 79 334–67.Google Scholar
H., Werness 1983. ‘Han van Meegeren fecit! In The Forger's Art: Forgery and the Philosophy of Art, Dutton, D. ed. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Wreen, M. 1983a. ‘Goodman on Forgery.’ Philosophical Quarterly 33 340–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wreen, M. 1983b. ‘Is, Madam? Nay, It Seems!’ In The Forger's Art: Forgery and the Philosophy of Art, Dutton, D. ed. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Wreen, M. 2002. ‘Forgery.’ Canadian Journal of Philosophy 32 143–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar