Philosophical Studies

, Volume 154, Issue 3, pp 373–387 | Cite as

Minimal authorship (of sorts)

Article
First Online:

Abstract

I propose a minimal account of authorship that specifies the fundamental nature of the author-relation and its minimal domain composition in terms of a three-place causal-intentional relation holding between agents and sort-relative works. I contrast my account with the minimal account tacitly held by most authorship theories, which is a two-place relation holding between agents and works simpliciter. I claim that only my view can ground productive and informative principled distinctions between collective production and collective authorship.

Keywords

Authorship Authors Works Appropriation Collaboration Collective authorship 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The core idea of this paper came from lengthy conversations about authorship I had with Aaron Meskin, Roy T. Cook, and Marcus Rossberg, and as such, I owe a special thanks to these three. I must also thank Robert Stecker for his helpful suggestions on earlier drafts.

References

  1. Barthes, R. (1997). The death of the author. Image-music-text. New York: Hill and Wang.Google Scholar
  2. Booth, W. (1961). The rhetoric of fiction. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bratman, M. (1999). Intentions, plans, and practical reason. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  4. Carroll, N. (2001). Beyond aesthetics: Philosophical essays. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Corlett, J. A. (2001). Collective moral responsibility. Journal of Social Philosophy, 32, 573–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Davidson, D. (1980). Essays on actions and events. Oxford: Claredon Press.Google Scholar
  7. Foucault, M. (1969). What is an author? Reprinted in 2001, W. Irwin (Ed.), The death and resurrection of the author? London: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  8. Gaut, B. (1997). Film authorship and collaboration. In R. Allen & M. Smith (Eds.), Film theory and philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Gaut, B., & Livingston, P. (2003). The creation of art: New essays in philosophical aesthetics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Geach, P. (1962). Reference and generality: An examination of some medieval and modern theories. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Gilbert, M. (1989). On social facts. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Ginet, C. (1990). On action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Hilpinen, R. (1993). Authors and artifacts. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 93, 155–178.Google Scholar
  14. Hirsch, E. (1967). Validity in interpretation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Hyman, G., & Pratt, H. (2005). What are comics? In D. Goldblatt & L. Brown (Eds.), A reader in the philosophy of the arts. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.Google Scholar
  16. Inge, M. T. (2001). Collaboration and concepts of authorship. PMLA, 116, 623–630.Google Scholar
  17. Irvin, S. (2005). Appropriation and authorship in contemporary art. British Journal of Aesthetics, 45, 123–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Irwin, W. (2001). Intentionalism and author constructs. In W. Irwin (Ed.), The death and resurrection of the author? London: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  19. Lamarque, P. (2001). The death of the author: An analytical autopsy. In W. Irwin (Ed.), The death and resurrection of the author? London: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  20. Lamarque, P. (2002). Work and object. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 102, 141–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Levinson, J. (1990). Music, art, and metaphysics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Livingston, P. (2005). Art and intention. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mackie, P. (1994). Sortal concepts and essential properties. Philosophical Quarterly, 44, 311–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McCloud, S. (1994). Understanding comics: The invisible art. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.Google Scholar
  25. Meskin, A. (2005). Defining comics? Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 65, 369–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Meskin, A. (2008). Authorship. In P. Livingston & C. Plantinga (Eds.), Routledge companion to philosophy and film. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Nehamas, A. (1986). What an author is. Journal of Philosophy, 83, 685–691.Google Scholar
  28. Rohrbaugh, G. (2005). I could have done that. British Journal of Aesthetics, 45, 209–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sellors, C. P. (2007). Collective authorship in film. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 65, 263–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Stecker, R. (1997). Artworks: Definition, meaning, value. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Stillinger, J. (1991). Multiple authorship and the myth of solitary genius. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Sultan, T. (2003). Chuck close prints: Process and collaboration. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Velleman, J. D. (1997). How to share an intention. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 57, 29–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wiggins, D. (2001). Sameness and substance renewed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.City College of New YorkNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations