Hugur - 01.06.2010, Qupperneq 105

Verufrœdi listaverksins
103
Companion to Aesthetics, 2. útg., ritstj. Berys Nigel Gaut og Dominic Mclver Lopes.
Oxford: Roudedge.
Schopenhauer, Arthur (1819) Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung. Frankfiirt: F.A. Brock-
haus.
Scruton, Roger (1978) Art andImagination. A Study in the Philosophy ofMind. London:
Methuen.
Strawson, RF. (1959) Individuals. An Essay in Descriptive Metapbysics. London:
Methuen.
Lhomasson, Amie L. (2004) „The Ontology of Art“, 4. kafli, bls. 78-92, í Ihe Blackwell
Guide to Aesthetics, ritstj. Peter Kivy. Oxford: Blackwell.
Wollheim, Richard (1980) Art and its Objects, 2. útg. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
Abstract
The Ontology of Art
In this paper, it is argued that all works of art, be they visual art, music or literat-
ure, are basically formal structures. First, the case of visual art is examined and it
is provisionally argued that art works in this field are material objects. Then, in
the central part of the paper, the focus is mainly on works of music and literature
and arguments are presented to the effect that such art works must be formal
structures. Some counterarguments are considered and attempts to answer them
put forward. However, it is also argued that a work of art cannot be just any
formal structure; it has to be a structure embedded in a certain cultural setting,
and it has to be seen and interpreted as an expression of the creative power of an
individual. This is what basically distinguishes e.g. a composer’s ‘discovery’ of a
theme from a mathematician’s discovery of a proof. Furthermore, a ‘causal’ theory
of art works is tentatively suggested. Next, it is argued that although it is possible
to conceive of visual art works as material objects, as provisionaUy conceded in
the first part, such art works are basicafly formal structures like other forms of art.
Finally, the theory presented is tested against some problems, e.g. that ofmultiple
art works’.