Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T23:51:56.226Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Exposure, experience, and intention recognition: Take it from the bottom

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 March 2013

Mark Rollins
Mark Rollins*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Philosophy-Neuroscience-Psychology Program, Washington University, St. Louis, MO 63130. mark@wustl.eduhttp://wustl.edu/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The psycho-historical account implies two ways of construing the relation of basic exposure to the artistic design stance and artistic understanding. One is empirically dubious and the other does not fit well with the account. The assumption that combining psychology with history requires identifying actual intentions is undermined by the artistic design stance.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 36 , Issue 2 , April 2013 , pp. 154 - 155
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

Dennett, D. C. (1987) The intentional stance. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dutton, D. (2000) But they don't have our concept of art. In: Theories of art today, ed. Carroll, N., pp. 217–38, University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, J. (1996b) The pleasures of aesthetics: Philosophical essays. Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Rollins, M. (2004) What Monet meant: Intention and attention in understanding art. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 62(2):175–88. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-594X.2004.00150.Google Scholar
Wollheim, R. (1993) Danto's gallery of indiscernibles. In: Danto and his critics, ed. Rollins, M., pp. 28–38. Blackwell.Google Scholar