政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/98897
English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  全文筆數/總筆數 : 113648/144635 (79%)
造訪人次 : 51588586      線上人數 : 942
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
搜尋範圍 查詢小技巧：
  • 您可在西文檢索詞彙前後加上"雙引號"，以獲取較精準的檢索結果
  • 若欲以作者姓名搜尋，建議至進階搜尋限定作者欄位，可獲得較完整資料
    •  進階搜尋
    政大機構典藏 > 文學院 > 哲學系 > 學位論文 >  Item 140.119/98897


    請使用永久網址來引用或連結此文件: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/98897


    題名: Dickie的藝術制度理論
    Dickie’s institutional theory of art
    作者: 李佳穎
    Lee, Chia Ying
    貢獻者: 鄭光明
    Cheng, Kuang Ming
    李佳穎
    Lee, Chia Ying
    關鍵詞: George Dickie
    藝術制度理論
    反本質主義
    分析美學
    藝術的定義
    George Dickie
    institutional theory of art
    anti-essentialism
    analytical aesthetics
    the definition of art
    日期: 2016
    上傳時間: 2016-07-11 17:40:14 (UTC+8)
    摘要: 寫作這篇論文的動機，是為了探討哲學家George Dickie的藝術制度理論(Dickie’s institutional theory of art)。在第一章中，回顧哲學家Arthur Danto與Morris Weitz的反本質主義(anti-essentialism)，及其如何影響Dickie藝術制度理論的發展，以及研究制度理論的重要性；第二章中，說明Dickie的藝術制度理論內容，並以實際的作品為例子講述藝術制度理論的應用；第三章至第四章中，整理反對藝術制度理論的數個哲學家(Jeffery Wieand, Robert Stecker, Stephen Davis, Richard Wollheim, Noël Carroll)的重要論點，並為Dickie的藝術制度理論辯護。最後第五章為結論，提出「藝術眼鏡」此一觀點用以修正藝術制度理論。
    The purpose of this paper is to investigate George Dickie’s institutional theory of art. I will first discuss Arthur Danto and Morris Weitz’s anti-essentialism, which is the groundwork for Dickie’s institutional theory of art. I will then discuss Dickie’s institutional theory of art, which has been developed as two versions. Both versions have been widely criticized. Stephen Davis argues that art created outside any institution seems possible, although Dickie’s institutional theory of art rules it out. Noël Carroll argues that Dickie’s definition of art is circular, and his institutional theory of art fails to distinguish art institutions from other social institutions. Jeffery Wieand argues that Dickie’s perceptually indistinguishable objects argument fails to show that his institutional theory of art is tenable. In this paper, I will argue that Dickie’s theory can be modified as “the glass theory of art.” If this is true, then these criticisms fail to undermine Dickie’s theory, and Dickie’s theory is still powerful.
    參考文獻: Carroll, Noël. (1999). Philosophy of Art. London, UK: Routledge.
    Carroll, Noël. (2001). Identifying Art. In Beyond Aesthetics: Philosophical Essays (pp. 75-100). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    Danto, A.C. (1981). Works of Art and Mere Real Things. In The Transfiguration of the Commonplace (pp. 1-32). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    Davis, Stephen. (1991). Definitions of Art. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
    Dickie, George. (1974). What Is Art? An Institutional Analysis. In Art and the Aesthetic: An Institutional Analysis (pp. 426-437). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
    Dickie, George. (1997). The Art Circle: A Theory of Art. Evanston, IL: Chicago Spectrum Press.
    Dickie, George. (1998). Wollheim’s Dilemma. British Journal of Aesthetics, 38, 2: 127-135.
    Dickie, George. (2000). The Institutional Theory of Art. In Theories of Art Today (pp. 93-108). Edited by Noël Carroll. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
    Edmunds, David & Nigel Warburton, (2010). Philosophy Bites. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
    Stecker, Robert. (1986). The End of an Institutional Definition of Art. The British Journal of Aesthetics, 26, 2: 124-132.
    Weitz, Morris. (1956). The Role of Theory in Aesthetics. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 15: 27-35; reprinted in P. Lamarque and S. H. Olsen eds. (2004). Aesthetics and the Philosophy of Art: The Analytic Tradition (pp. 12-18). UK, Oxford: Blackwell.
    Weitz, Morris. (1977). Art as an Open Concept. In The Opening Mind. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
    Wieand, Jeffery. (1994). Perceptually Indistinguishable Objects. In Institutions of Art: Reconsiderations of George Dickie’s Philosophy (pp. 39-49), ed. Robert J. Yanal. Pennsylvania State University Press.
    Wittgenstein, Ludwig. (1953). Philosophical Investigations. Translate by G. E. M. Anscomb. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
    Wollheim, Richard. (1980). The Institutional Theory of Art. In Art and Its Objects, 2nd edition (pp. 157-166). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    Wollheim, Richard. (1987). Painting as an Art. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
    描述: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    哲學系
    102154001
    資料來源: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G1021540011
    資料類型: thesis
    顯示於類別:[哲學系] 學位論文

    文件中的檔案:

    檔案 描述 大小格式瀏覽次數
    001101.pdf3298KbAdobe PDF21532檢視/開啟


    在政大典藏中所有的資料項目都受到原著作權保護.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏，無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用，惟仍請適度，合理使用本網站之內容，以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用，則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    2.本網站之製作，已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益，如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者，請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw)，維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - 回饋