Contemporary theorizing about art is dominated by a clash between two approaches: philosophers have characteristically taken the view that art is a vehicle of some universal meaning or truth, while art historians, and others working in the humanities, emphasize the concrete nature and historical particularity of the work of art. Is art capable of sustaining these two approaches? Or, as Kelly argues, is art rather determined by its historical particularity? If so, then if philosophers continue to pursue mainly the universality of art, they inadvertently end up exhibiting a disinterest and...
Contemporary theorizing about art is dominated by a clash between two approaches: philosophers have characteristically taken the view that art is a ve...