Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T23:15:49.510Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Context, causality, and appreciation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 March 2013

Stephanie Ross
Stephanie Ross*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of Missouri–St. Louis, St. Louis, MO 63121. sross@umsl.eduwww.umsl.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

I applaud and elaborate on the contextualism at the heart of Bullot & Reber's (B&R's) theory, challenge two aspects of the appreciative structure they posit (the causal reasoning that allegedly underlies the design stance and the segregation of the component stages), suggest that expert and novice appreciators operate differently, and question the degree to which B&R's final theory is open to empirical investigation.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 36 , Issue 2 , April 2013 , pp. 155 - 156
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

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

Lopes, D. M. (2005) Sight and sensibility: Evaluating pictures. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, S. (2012) Comparing and sharing taste: Reflections on critical advice. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 70(4):363–71.Google Scholar
Sibley, F. (1959) Aesthetic concepts. The Philosophical Review 68:421–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walton, K. L. (1970) Categories of art. The Philosophical Review 79(3):334–67.Google Scholar