Psychologism about Artistic Plans: Reply to Cray

Rohrbaugh, Guy

doi:10.1111/jaac.12430

Cited by 2 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 5 publications

(9 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Depending on the answer, it might be that we have two versions of satisfactionism lurking. It is clear that Rohrbaugh does not take that to be the case, as in a later discussion note he says that the version of satisfactionism given in terms of the artist's plan is just a more colloquial way of putting what he says about a guiding practical state (Rohrbaugh 2018, 105). Unfortunately, Rohrbaugh leaves the notion of a guiding practical state (intentionally, I take it) unclear.…”

Section: Against Completion Monismmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Rohrbaugh agrees that this would be a bad consequence for his view, but he does not think that satisfactionism must suffer it. He says he is “tempted to say there is no such case as what [Cray] describes” (Rohrbaugh 2018, 107). Instead, Rohrbaugh guesses that we are conceiving loosely of a case where someone satisfies a large part of their plan but not all of it (so there is no convergence), and they do not like the result.…”

Section: Against Completion Monismmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Rohrbaugh does acknowledge the possibility of cases in which there really is convergence between plan and work. For such cases, if the artist decides to change their plan and alter the work, Rohrbaugh prefers to describe them as cases of “change in an already completed work” (Rohrbaugh 2018, 106).…”

Section: Against Completion Monismmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(2006). For the philosophical literature, see Beardsley (1982), Cray (2018), Gover (2011, 2015, 2018), Hick (2008a, 2008b), Livingston (1999, 2005, 2008), Livingston and Archer (2010), Rohrbaugh (2017, 2018), and Trogdon and Livingston (2014, 2015).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

How to Understand the Completion of Art

Grafton-Cardwell

2020

The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There are a number of recent discussions on the question of when an artwork is complete. While it has been observed that a work might be complete in one way and not in another, the impact of this observation has been minimal. Discussion has been continued as if there is only one real sense of completion that matters. I argue that this is a mistake. Even if there were only one (or one most important) kind of completion, extant theories of completion would be bad candidates for that one kind. The best explanation of the failure of extant theories is that there are many kinds of completion, many corresponding senses of “completion,” and no kind of artwork completion is objectively more important than any other. We have a good reason to think that this is the case given the disparate interests we have when we ask completion questions. Once we have realized that those concerns track properties that are often unrelated, the question for theorists to answer becomes, “In how many ways can an artwork be complete?”

show abstract

Section: Against Completion Monismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Against Completion Monismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Against Completion Monismmentioning

confidence: 99%