What Is an Antique?

Abstract

Antiques are undoubtedly objects worthy of aesthetic appreciation, but do they have a distinctive aesthetic value in virtue of being antiques? In this article we give an account of what it is to be an antique that gives the thesis that they do have a distinctive aesthetic value a chance of being true and suggests what that distinctive value consists in. After introducing our topic in Section I, in Section II we develop and defend the Adjectival Thesis: the thesis that the concept of being an antique is an adjectival concept. This provides us with the means to formulate our definition, which we do in Section III. In Section IV we further explicate and defend our definition. In Section V we conclude by briefly saying where we think our definition could be improved, by making a few comments about the aesthetics of antiques and by stating an interesting consequence of our definition: that it is not analytic that antiques are old.

Analyzing Antiqueness: A Response to Curtis and Baines

“…My next point of contention has to do with Curtis and Baines's explicit discounting of art objects from the discussion of antiques. They do this in order to put to the side a number of awkward cases—such as artist Kittiwat Unarrom's art objects made from bread (see Curtis and Baines , 85n.10)—and I agree that such cases are outliers for a theory of antiqueness and should not be of central concern. Yet discounting art objects generally from the discussion conceals important issues and excludes many very plausible candidates from being central test cases for a theory of antiqueness.…”

“…Aestheticians should be excited by the prospects of a philosophy of antiques. It is to their merit that Curtis and Baines () ignite philosophical discussion about this aesthetically and historically important category, so far overlooked by philosophers . And I agree with much they have to say on the topic.…”

“…Indeed, Curtis and Baines allow that “if antiques have a distinctive aesthetic value then they must derive from certain extrinsic nonformal properties” (, 84).…”

Must Antiques Be Technically Excellent? A Rejoinder to Killin

“…We focused on nonart objects and argued for the following definition of what conditions a nonart object of a particular kind K must meet in order to be an antique:

An object x of an artifactual kind K is an antique K iff x exemplifies technical excellence (for a K) and was made in a style and using a method of production (for making Ks) that subsequently became obsolete but is exemplary of (and so rooted in) the era and place in which the K was made. (Curtis and Baines , 81)

…”

“…An object x of an artifactual kind K is an antique K iff x exemplifies technical excellence (for a K) and was made in a style and using a method of production (for making Ks) that subsequently became obsolete but is exemplary of (and so rooted in) the era and place in which the K was made. (Curtis and Baines , 81)…”