Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Art and Authenticity: A Reply to Jaworski

  • Published:
The Journal of Value Inquiry Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. Peter Martin Jaworski. “In Defense of Fakes and Artistic Treason: Why Visually-Indistinguishable Duplicates Are as Good as the Originals.” Journal of Value Inquiry (2013), pp. 391–405. Quotation at p. 392.

  2. Ibid., p. 393.

  3. Ibid., p. 393.

  4. Ibid., p. 394.

  5. Margolis, Joseph. “Robust Relativism.” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism Vol. 35, No. 1 (1976), pp. 37–46.

  6. Wimsatt, William K. and Monroe C. Beardsley. “The Intentional Fallacy.” Sewanee Review, Vol. 54 (1946), pp. 468–488. Revised and republished in The Verbal Icon: Studies in the Meaning of Poetry (University of Kentucky Press, 1954), pp. 3–18.

  7. Jaworski, op. cit., p. 402.

  8. For discussion, see Meyer Schapiro, Van Gogh, (New York: Harry N. Abrams Inc.), 2000 (reprint of the 1994 edition), pp. 70–71.

  9. Jaworski op. cit., p. 402.

  10. Ibid., p. 394.

  11. Christopher Janaway, “Kant's Aesthetics and the Empty Cognitive Stock.” The Philosophical Quarterly Vol. 47, No. 189 (Oct., 1997), pp. 459–476. Quotation at p. 460.

  12. Ibid., p. 461.

  13. Clive Bell, “Art and Significant Form.” Art (1913); available on line at http://denisdutton.com/bell.htm.

  14. Nelson Goodman, Languages of Art: An Approach to a Theory of Symbols (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1968), p. 112.

  15. Arthur Schopenhauer, The World as Will and Representation, trans. E.FJ. Payne (New York: Dover, 1969), Vol. I, Section 34, p. 179.

  16. Martin H. Krieger, “What's Wrong with Plastic Trees?” Science, New Series Vol. 179, No. 4072 (Feb. 2, 1973), pp. 446–455. Quotation at p. 453.

  17. Immanuel Kant, Critique of Judgment, Bernard translation (1966), p. 145.

  18. Samuel Wheeler, “Attributives and Their Modifiers.” Noûs Vol. 6, No. 4 (Nov., 1972), pp. 310–334. Quotation at p. 333.

  19. Ibid., p. 315.

  20. Ibid., p. 311.

  21. Jaworski, op. cit. p. 393.

  22. E. H. Gombrich, Art and Illusion (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1962), pp. 367–369.

  23. Nelson Goodman, “The Status of Style.” Critical Inquiry Vol. 1, No. 4 (Jun., 1975), pp. 799–811. Quotation at p. 807.

  24. W. E. Kennick, “Art and Inauthenticity.” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism Vol. 44, No. 1 (Autumn, 1985), pp. 3–12. Quotation at p. 7.

  25. Jaworski, op. cit. p. 393.

  26. Kennick, op. cit. p. 3.

  27. Jaworski, op. cit. p. 392.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, 22030, USA

    Mark Sagoff

Authors
  1. Mark Sagoff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark Sagoff.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sagoff, M. Art and Authenticity: A Reply to Jaworski. J Value Inquiry 48, 503–515 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10790-014-9428-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10790-014-9428-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation