Advertisement

Margolis describes the ” core issues ” that unite his perspective as a ” sympathy for the application of broader moderate relativism … and commiunent a non – reductionist materialism specially designed for the development of cultural phenomena ” ( p. v) to meet . Discussions in this book , especially the ontology of art , its cultural nature , the logic of interpretation and evaluation are closely related to these themes . Works of art are ” culturally emergent entities. ” Embedded in , but not identical , physical objects , which are similar in relation to persons , the distinctive characteristics technique , in accordance with the non – materialism – reductive , are as follows: they are . ” Exist only in cultural contexts , such as intentional ” entities , they can be identified as intensionally , they are focused and they have a ” rule – governed order of their composition elements ” ( p. 19 ) . Relativism Margolis , ” robust” as it is sometimes called , instead of ” radical ” , shows a vigorous defense of the permissibility of ” plural , non-convergence or inconsistent interpretations of a given … ” ( p. 151 ) work. Radical relativism , where anything goes , is avoided by a tightly limited notion of plausibility . On the theory of art evaluation , Margolis reveals new relativism . The distinction between ” evaluative judgments ” ( or ” findings” ) of ” glow ” judge , the latter complete perspective on your personal taste , but the first is similar to the legal and medical findings , remains publicly predicates criteria apply only concern to larger and more stable , ” the current prevailing taste ” ( p. 225) .

An important chapter , which helps to focus on key issues , the ” describe and interpret works of art . ” Margolis defends a distinction between description and interpretation . Indeed , what is important for him to identify . One of the limitations of the plausibility of an interpretation as ” compatibility with writable attributes ” ( p. 163) Were there no stable descriptions and objectives of the art the way it would open a radical relativism in art criticism . Margolis sees the award as follows : ” In the description , the emphasis is on a separate object of a certain effort of the description, an object that has the properties assigned or has …. In the interpretation , the emphasis is on critical performance , what is added than simple materials delivered ” ( p. 111 ) . Ordinary physical objects are to be described in this direction. Models But Margolis artworks never identical physical objects , even if the ” culturally emergent entities” , they are ” embedded ” in these objects . It should not be obvious, therefore , that there can be simple descriptions ( noninterpretive ) works of art in itself , as opposed to physical objects . Margolis works hard for the Prevention of theorists , including Monroe Beardsley , seeking to reduce the description to interpretation: this is the interpretation that the descriptions of what is hidden ( p. 1 10 ) to see. But he said some of the people who would reject the distinction opposite , that is to collapse descriptions in interpretations . However, this seems a reasonable position , given its own local Margolis . After all, if , as suggested by Margolis , artifacts are ” intentional entities” and can be classified as ” intensionally , ” it is difficult to see how they can qualify as “to describe. Independent objects of a certain effort” Margolis admits ” once we interpret works as an emerging cultural , we can not apply the usual criteria for determining what is and is not” in ” an object ” ( p. 122 ) and ” it is absolutely impossible for the ” internal ” functions to define without paying attention to the outside culture ( p. 175) ” that the context in which a work of art is provided .” These comments are enlightening and insightful , but they undermine the dichotomy between the houses in discovering and assigning properties attention a work to works of art , a distinction Margolis based on the distinction between description and interpretation to support and ultimately the “moderate relativism ” . It is interesting to point this exercise , not only because of discrimination, but because it suggests that the theory of Margolis marks a radical departure that he and interesting these theories that emphasize the descriptive recognize the art critic . Margolis also gives clear examples of properties that describe : ” In art , line, color , texture , shapes, and usually , shows , genres and styles … (and ) in the literary and dramatic arts , intrigue , action, characters , vocabulary , rhythm , rhyme , the style of language … “(p. 127 ) This is obviously a varied assortment ; . Descriptions performances , genres and characters are questionable , and critical judgment , much more than that of color or vocabulary more importantly, these properties . properties are works of art or aesthetic properties , when they are identified and connected to each other by a network of concepts, or a perceptual framework , on the basis of institutional and cultural practice . on a strict intentional art theory . aesthetic characteristics as such, are not inherent in objects such as physical properties . a row in a table is a figure in a composition , or even a part of a work of art in the context of a way of seeing and understanding. the identification of these features process is much more like an interpretation , modeled physical description are marketed. meaning of the subject of Margolis , description , Three heart of the book , the literary arts , moves of the core and it is unfortunate that Margolis does not pursue further the promising suggestion that literary works are ” culturally emergent ” . Rather, the focus is on the arguments against the theories of speech act literature and explore the puzzles. Reference in fiction A large part of the discussion here, seems to be negative and critical, but may be positive contribution can be characterized as a new ‘ relativism . ” ” Speech act theorists are wrong cop mainly for their zeal generalization : ” poetry and literature classes conglomerate that it is not likely that a distinctive type and dominant for speech act are” ( p. 248 ) as a reference , Margolis sees no problem . the idea to refer to what does not exist , but it does little to alleviate the idea of ​​a reference to a fictional character . a fictional character is not like would Margolis , whose essential property of non – existence , but something ( cap only the essential function does not exist as separate characters in the real world , but not as individuals , if anything, . they are imaginary – people , that is something else .

Advertisement

The book is very rich in detailed argument. His style is dialectic , every idea is a response to , or is assessed on the writings of others ( a complaint here : the only reference to the book is often nonspecific annoying ) . It will undoubtedly , and rightly take its place among the central texts of modern aesthetics .

Advertisement