Review the Forfer's Art

8/12/2019 Review the Forfer's Art

1/4

The Forger's Art. Forgery and the Philosophy of Art. by Denis DuttonReview by: Gregory CurrieThe Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 35, No. 141, Special Issue: Philosophy and the Law (Oct.,1985), pp. 435-437Published by: Wileyfor The Philosophical Quarterly

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2219478.Accessed: 13/01/2014 09:19

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Wileyand The Philosophical Quarterlyare collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

The Philosophical Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 84.88.142.134 on Mon, 13 Jan 2014 09:19:25 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=philquarhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2219478?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2219478?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=philquarhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black


2/4

BOOK REVIEWS 435How odd, one might hink, hatwhile Kant and Rousseau deserve chapterapiece,MarxandMillmust hareone Buttheir nalyses, oth instrumental"nd"self-developmental",onvergen favourfsocialism. he comparisons illuminat-

ing throughout; ill's advocacy f an increasingmeasureofworkers ontrol ssharpened y tspresentationlongside sympatheticiscussion f Marx'sanalysisofproperty,abour nd the alienationf all men under apitalism.In thefinal hapter yan sks, WhyAreThereSo Few Socialists?". is answer,which caricature,s that heworkinglasses are muchbetter ff han heywereformerlynd toooccupiedbyfamilyife nd the activities hich eisurepermitsostrive or ontrolver hemeans f abour.His accountwouldhavebeena gooddealmorepersuasiveenyears go. Ifcapitalismoes notdeliver hegoods andsomeofthe affluentworkers nterviewed y Goldthorpe t al may now be sufferingunemployment)t smorally efunct. he complacentapitalistmay e a happy utshort-sightedool.Let mefinishysaying ow nterestingndenjoyablehisbook s throughout.tcanbe recommendedo,and should nterestndprofit,ustabouteverybody.UniversityfGlasgow DUDLEY KNOWLES

TheForger's rt.Forgerynd thePhilosophyfArt.EDITED BY DENIS DUTTON(BerkeleyndLos Angeles:Universityf California ress,1983.Pp.x + 276.Price?19.00.)

Empiricismn aestheticsspartlyharacterisedy n nsistencehat work f rt sa "sensoryurface". hisgives ise o the hesis hatwhatsaestheticallyaluablenapaintings a functionolelyof how it looks.So forgery,hile t is certainlyneconomic rime, ndmaybe an art-historicalrime,s notan aestheticrime.Tomisrepresentwork's rigins nottherebyomisrepresentts aesthetic alue.Andcriticswhowithdrewheir raiseof TheSupper t Emmaus pondiscoveringhat twas notbyVermeer re at bestconfused. uch is theargumentf Alfred essing,whose "What sWrongwith orgery?",riginallyublishedn 1965, s reprintednthisvolume f twelve ssays.Sevenof he ssays renew, ndamong hose reviouslyublishedre two amousstatementsfanti-empiricism:eonardMeyer's ForgeryndtheAnthropologyfArt" ndNelson Goodman's Art ndAuthenticity"chapterhree fhisLanguagesofArt). oodman's rgumentseemto me to havehadan nfluenceutofproportiontotheirntrinsic orth. ut since havediscussed hem n detail lsewhere"TheAuthentic nd theAesthetic", mericanhilosophicaluarterly,985) I shallnotpursue hematter ere.Meyer's rgument,houghmpressionisticallytated, anbedevelopednto powerfulase against mpiricism.

Before cometotheargumentt s importantospecifyhree uestions hat retreatedf n these ssays utnot tany oint learly istinguishedromneanother:(1) If a works discoveredobe a forgery,anit everbe reasonable o revise uraestheticudgmentf t?(2) If twopaintingsookexactlylikemust hey avethe same aesthetic alue?(3) Must a paintingnda perfectopyof t have the same aesthetic alue?

This content downloaded from 84.88.142.134 on Mon, 13 Jan 2014 09:19:25 AMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/4

436 BOOK REVIEWS(1) bearsonly ndirectlyn the other woquestions, ecausecopiesneed not beforgeries,ndmany orgeriesre notcopiesofexisting orks; hey repaintingsnthe tyle f nother rtist. he answer o 1), indicated yMeyer,s Yes:works f rt

areessentiallyolutions ostylisticndtechnicalroblems,ndthese roblemsccurwithin givenhistorical ontext.The discovery f a forgerymay require areassessmentf hework's istoricalontext,nd thus reassessmentf tsproblem-solving uccess. Versions f thisargumentre presented yMarkSagoff "TheAesthetic tatus of Forgeries", ee especially .146) and Denis Dutton"ArtisticCrimes", ee especially .176).MichaelWreen "Is Madam?Nay, tSeems ")holdsthat his rgumentoes notdo enoughto establish hatforgerys an aesthetic rime because it would bepowerless o condemn he workof a forger ho workedwithin he same artisticgroup, sing he same conventionsndsubject o the same technicalimitations,sthe rtist hosework e fakesp.216).There are two nswersnemight ive o this.One is tosay hat orgerys not lwaysnaesthetic rime thats,themisattributioninduced ytheactofforgery aynot lways esultnanincorrectssessment fthework's esthetic alue.Or onemay rgue hat given aintingsalwaysobe assessedwithinheoverall roblem-solvingtrategydopted y he rtist.n that ase forgerywillbe misleadingecause twillresultnanincorrectccount fwhat hat trategyis.(2) and (3) aredistinctuestions, ecause twopaintingsmight,onceivably,ookthe amewithout nebeing copy ftheother. n this ase I think e havedistinct,though isuallydenticalworks,whichmayhave differentesthetic alue. So theanswer o (2) is No.) For an argument refer he readerto Kendall Walton's"Categoriesof Art" (Philosophicaleview, 9, pp. 334-67). Unfortunatelyhisimportantork s not ncluded r evenmentionednthepresent olume.Failing odistinguish2) and 3), anti-empiricistsave ended o answer3) inthenegative. takethe correct nswer obe Yes: theperfect opy hares he aestheticvalue of theoriginal,ncludinghatpartof theaesthetic aluedeterminedythework'shistory,ustas my20thcenturyopyofWar nd Peace hares he aestheticvalue ofTolstoy'sMS. (That is, being correctlypelled, tprovidesustas muchaccess to the work s Tolstoy'sMS.) AdoptingheterminologyfGoodman,butrejecting is substantialhesis,we may aythatpaintings allographicather hanautographic;t s no morepossible oforge particularxisting aintinghan t s toforge ing ear. No more ndnoless: t spossible oforgeheoriginalMS ofKingLear.)JackMeiland comes closetoadoptinghispositionn "Originals, opiesandAesthetic alue" (see especially .123). Now Meilandpresents is argumentsscounter o theposition fMeyer,but this s misleading ecausewhileMeyer sanswering uestion 1), Meiland is answering uestion 3). "Rationally econ-structed",heirpositions re consistentand, I believe,correct).But Meiland'sargumentsorhispositionre not lways ntarget. peaking fthe estheticmpactof originalitye says "No one cares aboutan originalworkof artthat s a[n][aesthetically]ery ad work. tsoriginalityattersnlywhent svery ood" p.123).Now criticalpinionsnotunanimousnthis oint, ut think e have hemakingsofa counterexample.icasso'sLes DemoisellesJAvignonas and is regarded s aconfused ndhasty omposition,etrayingbvious nconsistenciesfstyle. etit ssaid tobe "of, rimemportance,n the sense ofbeing he concrete utcome fanoriginal ision" see T. Kulka, The Artistic nd Aesthetic alue ofArt',BritishJournal fAesthetics,1, pp. 336-50).To defend positive nswerto (3) requires differentnd moresystematicargument. have tried oprovide ne elsewhereop.cit., 985).



4/4

BOOK REVIEWS 437The volume eginswith naccount fthat xtraordinarypisode nthehistoryfforgedrt, hecase ofvanMeegeren,whoputa series f ncreasinglynept akes fVermeer crosstheDutchartmarketHope Weress, "Han vanMeegerenfecit").

The case is fascinating,nd referredo constantlyn the analyticiterature. naccount f there suseful,hemore o asWerness ives mportantnformationotcontainednLord Kilbracken'sVanMeegeren: aster orger.Aesthetic mpiricisms out of fashionnow. Monroe Beardsley's Notes onForgery" efends version f t,buta weaker ne thanLessing's: I reject he deathattherecan be two ndistinguishableaintings ery ifferentn value and verydifferentnmeaning"p. 229,my talics).While hese ssaysdonotentirelylarifyhe ssuesraisedbyforgery,opyingndvisual ameness, early llofthemhavesomethingnterestingosayon the ubject.And it is certainlyery onveniento have theessaysby Lessing,Goodman andMeyer essayswhichno student fthesubject an affordo ignore availabletogether.he editor, enis Dutton,has recently ovedfromMichigan othe ArtSchool in Christchurch,ringing ithhim the journalPhilosophyndLiterature.Perhaps I may take this opportunityo welcome him to the New Zealandphilosophical ommunity.UniversityfOtago GREGORYCURRIE

Morality nd the Bomb. BY DAVID FISHER. (London: Croom Helm, 1985.Pp.136. Price?15.95.)Amongsthe ncreasingumber fphilosophicaltudies fthis ubject, his ookisdistinguishedy hefact hat ts uthors a civil ervantn theMinistryfDefence;as such trepresents verywelcomemeeting fminds etween cademics pplyingthemselvesopublic ffairs,ndpublic ervantseflectingn the thics f hepoliciesthey re involvedn.Fisher'sbook s admirablyoncise ndclearlywritten.n myviewhe has showngood udgmentnconsideringust bout s much f herelevantcademicwork s heneedsto forhispracticalmoral rgument.n this opic,t s easyontheone hand oallow discussionof intentionality,amestheory, trategic octrine, r weaponstechnologyobecomeso esoteric s tobe academic n thepejorativeense of theword, r on the otherhand to fall ntouncriticalloganizing, hetheragainst hebomb'or defending emocracy'. isher dmirably eepshiseyesfixed othonthevery ressingmoral uestions,ndontheunpleasantealities fourworld nwhichevery olicy ptionhas its owndangers.He reviews he ustwartraditionriskly,eciding hat heprinciplesmbodiednithavestrongmoral ppeal, ndall themore o ifthey re nterpretedndappliedwithoutppealeither o the contentious octrinefdoubleeffect,r the debatablemoraldistinctionetween cts and omissions. e thenrejects ny trictlybsoluterule that t is alwayswrong o killthe nnocentwhateverheconsequences f notdoingso, and espouses instead what he calls a "principled onsequentialism",according o which the results f non-performancef an actionmaysometimesoverridehemoral uleprohibitingt. "Moralharm"willbe involvednsuchbreach,but thismay nthecircumstancese the esseroftwoevils.


Review the Forfer's Art

Documents

Transcript of Review the Forfer's Art