西方艺术体制理论研究
摘要
本文的研究对象为二十世纪下半叶起源于西方分析美学阵营内关于“艺术定义”之论争的艺术体制理论。从狭义上来说,艺术体制论特指以分析美学家丹托和迪基等人为代表的从分析哲学出发的为艺术下定义的理论；而从广义上讲,艺术体制论也可以是指从体制角度来分析艺术界景观和现象的诸种艺术理论。虽然艺术体制理论在不同研究路径下呈现出不同的面相,但总的来说,它把艺术视为一种体制,将艺术作品和现象置于具体的文化社会背景中加以讨论,将目光从艺术的“本质属性”移向艺术生产、传播、消费和分配过程中所涉及到的制度、行为和各种权力关系,打破了艺术是“纯粹的”这一美学幻象。
通过介绍、梳理艺术体制理论的发生、发展和演变,本文揭示了当代美学发展的一个重要的范式转变：从探寻艺术品自身的“本质属性”的内结构思路,转向以探讨作品与其外在历史、社会、文化语境之间关系的外结构研究范式,换言之,传统艺术哲学和美学的本质主义追问“何为艺术”,在艺术体制理论对艺术品资格何以获得的考察中,被置换为“为何为艺术”。艺术体制论的出现表明,传统美学和艺术哲学在当代艺术实践创新与自身理论发展需要的双重压力下,需要从其他学科(如社会学)汲取理论资源的趋势。美学也该从对“美”的过分关注和一统天下的本质主义思路中走出来,摆脱抽象的哲学思辨的束缚,重新关注生活与艺术的融合。
论文包括引论、正文和结语三部分。引论部分综合论述了艺术体制理论的界定,研究背景和意义及其国内外研究历史和现状。
正文第一章梳理了现代自主性艺术观念的形成以及由此必然出现的本质主义诉求的关系,分析了本质主义界定艺术的路径在面对后现代艺术实践时表现出明显的阐释乏力,而分析美学家们在反本质主义批判中发展出了“艺术不可定义”与从“非显性属性”出发重新界定艺术的两派,后者为艺术体制理论的发生提供了新思路。
第二章阐述了分析美学家丹托的“艺术界”理论的发生和发展。在丹托看来,“艺术界”就是由艺术史知识和理论所构成的赋予某物以艺术资格的体制性环境。文章指出,丹托的这一艺术“类定义”引发了“某物何以获得艺术品资格”的问题。本章进而对丹托围绕这一问题而提出的核心概念“艺术指认的‘是’”、建构性阐释以及作为“理由话语”存在的理论氛围等进行了逐一解析,并指出对艺术品资格的判定和建构因素的讨论不应只停留在语言学层面,而应该深入到社会现实语境中去,这一思路在迪基的体制论中得到了继承和延续。
第三章讨论了迪基以艺术资格的“授予”为核心概念的早期惯例论。首先分析了迪基如何通过对“审美经验”和“审美态度”的解构为建构价值中立的定义铺平道路。继而分析了迪基如何从“第三种关系属性”(艺术与社会体制系统之间)出发和艺术概念的“分类意义”出发,提出其惯例论的核心内容,即艺术品资格的获得是一种艺术体制对某欣赏对象进行的艺术地位的“授予”过程,艺术体制就是一种惯例性的既定实践体系。
第四章主要研究的是迪基后期惯例论以及由此产生的体制论的文化社会学转向。首先概述了分析美学界对惯例论的几种具有代表性的批评。针对这些批评,迪基的艺术哲学思考逐渐从艺术品本体的定义型思维模式转向对艺术界作为文化结构框架的探求。其次,本章对丹托和迪基的艺术体制论之间的异同进行了比较,指出丹托视角中的艺术品所处的“语境”(context)是一种具有形而上学意味的“理论氛围”,而迪基的“惯例论”则比较详尽而实证地阐述了这一背景,因而带有更鲜明的社会学色彩。最后,本章探讨了艺术体制理论在当代分析美学中所引发的文化学转向,指出体制取径已呈现出溢出传统美学所秉持的艺术品本体论视域的趋势,向文化社会学靠拢的趋势。
结语部分总结了艺术体制理论的意义和价值,同时剖析了艺术体制理论所揭示的分析美学所面临的困境,指出体制理论引发了当代美学在思考路径上的范式革命。
The topic of this research paper centers around the Institutional Theory of Art (ITA) which derives from the discussions about the "definition of art" by some western analytic aestheticians in the second half of20th century. In a narrow sense, ITA refers particularly to the theories advocated by the art philosophers like Arthur Danto and George Dickie, who propose to define art from the external context of artworks. In a broad sense, the ITA is a general term for art theories in various forms which analyze the diverse landscapes and phenomena in art world from the perspective of institutions. Though taking on different forms under different approaches, the ITA generally regards art as an institution, puts artworks and phenomena under the specific cultural and social context, and directs the focus from the "essence" of art to the institutions, behavior and power relations in art production, communication, consumption and distribution, thus breaking the aesthetic illusion of "pure art."
By introducing, combing the emergence, development and evolvement of the ITA, this thesis aims to reveal an important paradigm transition in contemporary aesthetics: from exploring the "innate property" of artworks to examining the relations between artworks and its external historical, social and cultural context. In other words, the ITA has changed the essentialist question of traditional art philosophy and aesthetics "what is art?" into "why is it art?" by discussing how the status of art is acquired. The emergence of the ITA indicates that under the double pressure of contemporary art creations and the development of art theory itself, the traditional aesthetics and art philosophy need to draw theoretical resources from other disciplines (such as sociology). Aesthetics should get away from the constraints of metaphysical and abstract philosophical speculations and divert its attention from the obsession with "beauty" and dominating essentialist approach to the fusion of life and art.
This thesis consists of the introduction, main body and conclusion. The main body is made up of five chapters. The introduction deals with the definition the ITA, the background, significance and approach of this research as well as the overseas and domestic status of research.
Chapter One discusses the connections between the autonomous modern art system and conceptions and artistic essentialism. The essentialist approach to define art has lagged apparently behind the postmodern artistic practice. In anti-essentialism criticism, the analytic aestheticians have developed two schools:art is indefinable and art can be redefined from "non-exhibited properties." The latter school has provided new approach and perspective for the ITA.
Chapter Two expounds the "artworld" theory by Danto. In his opinion,"artworld" is the institutional environment composed by artistic history and theory, which endows the object with the status of art. Danto's "quasi-definition" of art has triggered off the question "how does something acquire its status of art?." This chapter then analyzes the some core concepts concerning this question:the 'is' of artistic identification, constructive interpretation and discourse of reasons, and indicates that the discussion of the determination and construction of the status of art should not just stay on the linguistic level, but penetrate into the context of social reality. This approach has been carried forward and extended in Dickie's theory.
Chapter Three focuses on the early version of Dickie's ITA with "conferral" as the core concept. To construct a value-free definition of art, Dickie firstly deconstructs "aesthetic experience" and "aesthetic attitude." Starting from "the third relational property"(art and social institution) and the classificatory sense of art concept, he proposes the core of his ITA:the acquiring of status of art is a process of conferring a qualification to an object for appreciation by art institutions, which is a system of customary and established practice.
Chapter Four deals with the later phase of Dickie's ITA and its cultural sociological turn. Firstly it summarizes some representative criticisms of the ITA among the academia of analytic aesthetics. In response to these criticisms, Dickie turns his research attention from ontological, art-definition-oriented mode of thinking to the study on the artworld as a framework of cultural structure. He employs five mutually interpreted and interdependent definitions, i. e."artist,""artworks,""the public,""artworld system," and "artworld" to form a structural framework of art institutions. This chapter also makes a comparison between Danto and Dickie in their ITA and concludes that while the Danto's "context" and "background" in which artworks are situated is "atmosphere of theory" with metaphysical implication, Dickie's ITA further brings the context into a more concrete and empirical area, thus taking on a more sociological meaning. Finally, this chapter discusses the culturological turn in contemporary analytic aesthetics that the ITA has triggered. ITA has demonstrated a tendency of transcending the ontology of artworks held by traditional aesthetics and approaching the culturology and sociology.
In conclusion, the thesis analyzes the dilemma confronted by analytic aesthetic revealed by the ITA. The paradigm reform initiated by the ITA shows that the research and speculation on art can not be divorced from the cultural and social context of artworks. To accomplish a sustainable and diverse development, aesthetics and art philosophy must adopt theoretical resources from different disciplines.
通过介绍、梳理艺术体制理论的发生、发展和演变,本文揭示了当代美学发展的一个重要的范式转变：从探寻艺术品自身的“本质属性”的内结构思路,转向以探讨作品与其外在历史、社会、文化语境之间关系的外结构研究范式,换言之,传统艺术哲学和美学的本质主义追问“何为艺术”,在艺术体制理论对艺术品资格何以获得的考察中,被置换为“为何为艺术”。艺术体制论的出现表明,传统美学和艺术哲学在当代艺术实践创新与自身理论发展需要的双重压力下,需要从其他学科(如社会学)汲取理论资源的趋势。美学也该从对“美”的过分关注和一统天下的本质主义思路中走出来,摆脱抽象的哲学思辨的束缚,重新关注生活与艺术的融合。
论文包括引论、正文和结语三部分。引论部分综合论述了艺术体制理论的界定,研究背景和意义及其国内外研究历史和现状。
正文第一章梳理了现代自主性艺术观念的形成以及由此必然出现的本质主义诉求的关系,分析了本质主义界定艺术的路径在面对后现代艺术实践时表现出明显的阐释乏力,而分析美学家们在反本质主义批判中发展出了“艺术不可定义”与从“非显性属性”出发重新界定艺术的两派,后者为艺术体制理论的发生提供了新思路。
第二章阐述了分析美学家丹托的“艺术界”理论的发生和发展。在丹托看来,“艺术界”就是由艺术史知识和理论所构成的赋予某物以艺术资格的体制性环境。文章指出,丹托的这一艺术“类定义”引发了“某物何以获得艺术品资格”的问题。本章进而对丹托围绕这一问题而提出的核心概念“艺术指认的‘是’”、建构性阐释以及作为“理由话语”存在的理论氛围等进行了逐一解析,并指出对艺术品资格的判定和建构因素的讨论不应只停留在语言学层面,而应该深入到社会现实语境中去,这一思路在迪基的体制论中得到了继承和延续。
第三章讨论了迪基以艺术资格的“授予”为核心概念的早期惯例论。首先分析了迪基如何通过对“审美经验”和“审美态度”的解构为建构价值中立的定义铺平道路。继而分析了迪基如何从“第三种关系属性”(艺术与社会体制系统之间)出发和艺术概念的“分类意义”出发,提出其惯例论的核心内容,即艺术品资格的获得是一种艺术体制对某欣赏对象进行的艺术地位的“授予”过程,艺术体制就是一种惯例性的既定实践体系。
第四章主要研究的是迪基后期惯例论以及由此产生的体制论的文化社会学转向。首先概述了分析美学界对惯例论的几种具有代表性的批评。针对这些批评,迪基的艺术哲学思考逐渐从艺术品本体的定义型思维模式转向对艺术界作为文化结构框架的探求。其次,本章对丹托和迪基的艺术体制论之间的异同进行了比较,指出丹托视角中的艺术品所处的“语境”(context)是一种具有形而上学意味的“理论氛围”,而迪基的“惯例论”则比较详尽而实证地阐述了这一背景,因而带有更鲜明的社会学色彩。最后,本章探讨了艺术体制理论在当代分析美学中所引发的文化学转向,指出体制取径已呈现出溢出传统美学所秉持的艺术品本体论视域的趋势,向文化社会学靠拢的趋势。
结语部分总结了艺术体制理论的意义和价值,同时剖析了艺术体制理论所揭示的分析美学所面临的困境,指出体制理论引发了当代美学在思考路径上的范式革命。
The topic of this research paper centers around the Institutional Theory of Art (ITA) which derives from the discussions about the "definition of art" by some western analytic aestheticians in the second half of20th century. In a narrow sense, ITA refers particularly to the theories advocated by the art philosophers like Arthur Danto and George Dickie, who propose to define art from the external context of artworks. In a broad sense, the ITA is a general term for art theories in various forms which analyze the diverse landscapes and phenomena in art world from the perspective of institutions. Though taking on different forms under different approaches, the ITA generally regards art as an institution, puts artworks and phenomena under the specific cultural and social context, and directs the focus from the "essence" of art to the institutions, behavior and power relations in art production, communication, consumption and distribution, thus breaking the aesthetic illusion of "pure art."
By introducing, combing the emergence, development and evolvement of the ITA, this thesis aims to reveal an important paradigm transition in contemporary aesthetics: from exploring the "innate property" of artworks to examining the relations between artworks and its external historical, social and cultural context. In other words, the ITA has changed the essentialist question of traditional art philosophy and aesthetics "what is art?" into "why is it art?" by discussing how the status of art is acquired. The emergence of the ITA indicates that under the double pressure of contemporary art creations and the development of art theory itself, the traditional aesthetics and art philosophy need to draw theoretical resources from other disciplines (such as sociology). Aesthetics should get away from the constraints of metaphysical and abstract philosophical speculations and divert its attention from the obsession with "beauty" and dominating essentialist approach to the fusion of life and art.
This thesis consists of the introduction, main body and conclusion. The main body is made up of five chapters. The introduction deals with the definition the ITA, the background, significance and approach of this research as well as the overseas and domestic status of research.
Chapter One discusses the connections between the autonomous modern art system and conceptions and artistic essentialism. The essentialist approach to define art has lagged apparently behind the postmodern artistic practice. In anti-essentialism criticism, the analytic aestheticians have developed two schools:art is indefinable and art can be redefined from "non-exhibited properties." The latter school has provided new approach and perspective for the ITA.
Chapter Two expounds the "artworld" theory by Danto. In his opinion,"artworld" is the institutional environment composed by artistic history and theory, which endows the object with the status of art. Danto's "quasi-definition" of art has triggered off the question "how does something acquire its status of art?." This chapter then analyzes the some core concepts concerning this question:the 'is' of artistic identification, constructive interpretation and discourse of reasons, and indicates that the discussion of the determination and construction of the status of art should not just stay on the linguistic level, but penetrate into the context of social reality. This approach has been carried forward and extended in Dickie's theory.
Chapter Three focuses on the early version of Dickie's ITA with "conferral" as the core concept. To construct a value-free definition of art, Dickie firstly deconstructs "aesthetic experience" and "aesthetic attitude." Starting from "the third relational property"(art and social institution) and the classificatory sense of art concept, he proposes the core of his ITA:the acquiring of status of art is a process of conferring a qualification to an object for appreciation by art institutions, which is a system of customary and established practice.
Chapter Four deals with the later phase of Dickie's ITA and its cultural sociological turn. Firstly it summarizes some representative criticisms of the ITA among the academia of analytic aesthetics. In response to these criticisms, Dickie turns his research attention from ontological, art-definition-oriented mode of thinking to the study on the artworld as a framework of cultural structure. He employs five mutually interpreted and interdependent definitions, i. e."artist,""artworks,""the public,""artworld system," and "artworld" to form a structural framework of art institutions. This chapter also makes a comparison between Danto and Dickie in their ITA and concludes that while the Danto's "context" and "background" in which artworks are situated is "atmosphere of theory" with metaphysical implication, Dickie's ITA further brings the context into a more concrete and empirical area, thus taking on a more sociological meaning. Finally, this chapter discusses the culturological turn in contemporary analytic aesthetics that the ITA has triggered. ITA has demonstrated a tendency of transcending the ontology of artworks held by traditional aesthetics and approaching the culturology and sociology.
In conclusion, the thesis analyzes the dilemma confronted by analytic aesthetic revealed by the ITA. The paradigm reform initiated by the ITA shows that the research and speculation on art can not be divorced from the cultural and social context of artworks. To accomplish a sustainable and diverse development, aesthetics and art philosophy must adopt theoretical resources from different disciplines.
引文
① 本文研究中所提到的体制的主要对应词为institution,而非system或prganization。Institution在不同语境中有着不同的意义,因而是一个比较复杂而难以把握的概念。这里借用《艺术与社会理论——美学中的社会学论争》(Harrington, Austin, Art and Social Theory:Sociological Arguments in Aesthetics, Maiden:Polity Press,2004.)一书的导论部分中对institution一词的总结：在经济和文化领域,institution往往被翻译成“制度”,用来表达社会系统内部成员约定俗成的习性、习俗、惯例和强制性的规约(formal rules, regulations, law, charters, constitutions);在哲学领域考虑到规则、秩序的人为建构性,往往翻译成“建制”；在文艺理论研究和社会学领域,针对丹托、迪基和彼得·比格尔的用法和意义,形成了三种不同的译名,即制度、体制和机制。在译成“制度”时,我们偏重它的意识形态化意义,如奴隶制度、资本主义制度、社会主义制度等；在译成“机制”时,我们偏重它的运作过程以及系统内部各部分之间的相互作用；在译成“体制”时,我们主要强调institution的两个主要内涵：系统内部成员普遍接受的主导性思想观念,以及业已确立起来的生产、交换和分配机制。(奥斯汀·哈灵顿,《艺术与社会理论——美学中的社会学论争》,周计武、周雪娉译,南京大学出版社,2010,第1页。)
② Allan G. Johnson, The Blackwell Dictionary of Sociology, Blackwell,2000, from http: //www.xreferplus.com/entry/723945
① 彼得·比格尔：《先锋派理论》,高建平译,商务印书馆,2002,第88页。
② 彼得·比格尔：《文学体制与现代化》,周宪译,国外社会科学,1998年第4期,第53页。
① Howard S. Becker, Art Worlds, Berkeley and Los Angeles:University of California Press,1982, p.145.
① George Dickie, Art and Aesthetics:An Institutional Analysis, Ithaca, N. Y.:Cornell University Press,1974, p. 34.
① 迪基：《艺术界》,转载自朱立元总主编,李钧编《二十世纪西方美学经典文本》(第三卷),复旦大学出版社,2001,第810页。
② George Dickie, "Wollheim's Dilemma," British Journal of Aesthetics, Vol.32, April 1998, p.133.
② 朱狄：《当代西方艺术哲学》,武汉：武汉大学出版社,2007年,第109页。
① Marcia Muelder Eaton, Basic Issues in Aesthetics, Wadsworth Publishing Company,1988, p.93.
② 这一概念来自于republic of letters(也称commonwealth of letters),一般译为“文学界”、“文坛”,这里为了和丹托的“艺术界”(artworld)作出区分,姑且把republic of art译为“艺术共同体”。
③ T. J. Diffey, "The Republic of Art," British Journal of Aesthetics,1969:Apr., p.147.
④ Ibid.
⑤ T. J. Diffey, "The Republic of Art," British Journal of Aesthetics,1969:Apr., p.150.
① 莱文森的历史主义艺术定义是：艺术作品是一个被有意看作一件艺术作品的东西：以任何正确地看待在它之前存在的艺术作品的方式来看待。可以看出莱文森主张把艺术概念放到一定的历史背景中去考察,是一种“回溯式”(backward-looking)的概念,他认为一件人工制品成为艺术品的条件是它和过去已经存在着的艺术作品之间的联系。
② Jerrold Levinson, "Defining Art Historically," British Journal of Aesthetics, Vol.19, No.3,1979, p.233.
① Ibid.
② Jerrold Levinson, "Refining Art Historically," British Journal of Aesthetics, Vol.47, No.1,1989, p.27.
③ 在这本著作中,戴维斯还提到了艺术理论的另一重要转向：历史性理论,后者通过从过去和传统中去寻求合法性关联来确立艺术品资格,这种历史语境论的最典型代表就是列文森和卡罗尔(Noel Carroll)。
① 卡罗尔：《艺术、实践与叙事》,载《超越美学》,北京：商务印书馆,2006,103-104页。
② 卡罗尔：《艺术、实践与叙事》,载《超越美学》,北京：商务印书馆,2006,第104页。
③ 同上。
① Monroe Beardsley, Aesthetics:Problems in the Philosophy of Criticism, Indianapolis:Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.,1981, p.298.
② 齐安·亚菲塔：《西港现代艺术：失去范式的文化误区》,载《学术月刊》,2009年第9期,第102页。
① 彭锋：《实用主义美学的新视野——访舒斯特曼教授》,载《哲学动态》,2008年第1期,第62页。
① 颜勇、黄虹：《西方设计：一部为生活设计艺术的历史》,长沙：湖南科学技术出版社,2010年,530-531页。
① 引自http://wenku.baidu.com/view/7110825c3c 1 ec5da50e27020.html.
② 解玉斌：《论观念艺术的当代价值》,《文艺评论》,2010年第6期,第10页。
③ 如意大利艺术家皮埃罗·曼佐尼(Piero Manzoni)那臭名昭著却卖出十一万欧元的作品"Artist's Shit"——艺术家将自己的大便分装在90个罐头里,并将其密封、编号、签名,以高于黄金市价的价格出售。
① 王瑞芸：《西方当代艺术理论前沿(一)》,北京：《美术观察》2010年第7期,第122页。
② 解玉斌：《论观念艺术的当代价值》,《文艺评论》,2010年第6期,第14页。
③ 丹托：《艺术的终结之后》,王春辰译,南京：江苏人民出版社,2007,第一章15-16页。
① 丹托曾多次详尽阐述过其“艺术终结”的真正含义：“艺术史的宏大叙事——在西方,但最后不单单是西方——就是有一种模仿的时代,后面跟着意识形态的时代,接着是我们的后历史时代。在这一时代,只要合格,什么都行。每一个这样的时代是以不同的批评结构为特征的。传统的或模仿的时期的艺术批评建立在视觉真实上。意识形态时代的艺术批评的结构则是一种我自己力求摆脱的批评：从特征上讲,它把它关于什么是艺术的哲学观念建立在它所接受的艺术(真实的)与任何不是真正艺术的别的东西之间的排外性区别上。后历史时期的特点是哲学与艺术之间的方法的分离,这意味着后历史时期的艺术批评必须和后历史主义自身一样是多元的。……在我们的叙事里,首先只有模仿是艺术,然后几种东西是艺术,但每一个都试图消灭它的竞争者,接着最后,显而易见的是没有了任何的风格限制或哲学限制。没有艺术品必须体现的特殊方式。我应该说,这就是当前宏大叙事中的最后时刻,这就是故事的终结。”他在另一处也表达了同样的意思：“没有什么比任何其他东西更正确。没有单一的方向。实际上,没有方向。这就是当我在20世纪80年代中期开始评论艺术时我所说的艺术的终结的含义。并不是艺术死了或绘画不再被人们画了,而是叙事结构的艺术史已经结束了。”引自《艺术的终结之后》,第51页和第137页。
② 丹托：《艺术的终结之后》,王春辰译,南京：江苏人民出版社,2007,第30页。
① E.H.Gombrich:The Story of Art,New York:Phaidon Press Inc,2007,pp.600.601.
① 丹托：《美的滥用》,王春辰译,南京：江苏人民出版社,2007年,导言第2页。
① E. H. Gombrich:The Story of Art, New York:Phaidon Press Inc,2007, p.15.
① 高建平：“中国文学理论的凝结、坚守与突进”(代序),《当代中国文艺理论热点研究》,北京：中国社会科学出版社,2011年,12-14页。
② 鲍姆加登：《美学》,北京：文化艺术出版社,1987年,第13页。
① 克莱夫·贝尔：《艺术》,薛华译,南京：江苏教育出版社,2005年,第3页。
① 维特根斯坦：《哲学研究》,李步楼译,北京：商务印书馆,2002年,第48页。
① Morris Weitz, "The Role of Theory in Aesthetics," in Aesthetics:Classic Readings from Western Tradition, ed. Dabney Townsended, Beijing:Peking University Press,2002, p.298.
① 指的是威廉·埃尔顿(William Elton),他于1954年主编的文集《美学和语言》(Aesthetics and Language)是分析美学史上一部奠基性的著作,被视为是分析美学的纲领性文件,它确立了要将“美学的方法”当作一种“科学的方法”的准则。这部开拓性的文集认定传统美学已经陷入“概括陷阱”和“混乱类比”,指出哲学应该致力于诊断并根治在美学上长期存在的混乱,揭露出其“本质主义的诱因”,哲学应为美学提供某种范本,以作为美学分析的基本参照。
② 瓦·阿·古辛娜：《分析美学评析》,李昭时译,北京：东方出版社,1990年,第75页。
③ 奥古斯汀：《忏悔录》,周士良译,商务印书馆,1981。
① W.E.肯尼克：《传统美学是否基于一个错误?》,载于《当代美学》,李普曼编著,北京：光明日报出版社,1986年,225-226页。
① 瓦·阿·古辛娜：《分析美学评析》,李昭时译,北京：东方出版社,1990年,第70页。
① M.曼德尔鲍姆：《家族相似及有关艺术的概括》,载于《当代美学》,李普曼编著,北京：光明日报出版社,1986年,251-252页。
① 同上,第257页。
② 同上,第255页。
③ Peter Lamarque and Stein Haugom Olsen, Aesthetics and the Philosophy of Art:The Analytic Tradition, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing,2004, p.10.
① 刘悦笛：《分析美学史》,北京：北京大学出版社,2009年,第296页。
① Arthur Danto, "The Artworld," in Aesthetics:Big Questions, ed. Carolyn Korsmeyer, Cambridge:Blackwell, 1998, p.40.
② 迪基：《何为艺术?》,邓鹏译,载李普曼编《当代美学》,北京：光明日报出版社,1986,第110页。
① 丹托：《美的滥用》,王春辰译,南京：江苏人民出版社,2007年,导言第3页。
① 就笔者所掌握的材料,将"The Art world"这篇文章选编或收录的编著包括Peter Lamaeque和Stein Haugom Olsen编著的Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art, Dabney Townsend 的 Aesthetics:Classic Readings from Western Tradition, Thomas E. Wartenberg的The Nature of Art:An Anthology以及Carolyn Korsmeyer编选的Aesthetics:The Big Questions。
① Arthur Danto, "The Artworld," in Aesthetics:Big Questions, ed. Carolyn Korsmeyer, Cambridge:Blackwell, 1998, p.33.
② Ibid. p.34.
① Roger Fry, "The French Post-Impressionists," in Vision and Design, London:Chatto and Windus,1920, p.157.
② Arthur Danto, "The Artworld," in Aesthetics:Big Questions, ed. Carolyn Korsmeyer, Cambridge:Blackwell, 1998, p.35.
③ Ibid. PP 35-36.
① 这一虚构人物作为一个艺术愤青在丹托后来的著作《寻常物的嬗变》中再次出现。
② 宙克西斯：公元前5世纪的希腊著名画家,因其对明暗光影的运用和日常绘画而闻名,相传他画的葡萄栩栩如生,以至于引来小鸟啄食。
③ Arthur Danto, "The Artworld," in Aesthetics:Big Questions, ed. Carolyn Korsmeyer, Cambridge:Blackwell, 1998, p.36.
① Ibid.p.37.
② 也译成艺术确认、艺术辨识、艺术识别、艺术认定等。
② Arthur Danto, "The Artworld," in Aesthetics:Big Questions, ed. Carolyn Korsmeyer, Cambridge:Blackwell, 1998, p.38.
① Arthur Danto, "The Artworld," in Aesthetics:Big Questions, ed. Carolyn Korsmeyer, Cambridge:Blackwell, 1998. d.40.
② Tbid,p.20
① Arthur Danto, "The Artworld," in Aesthetics:Big Questions, ed. Carolyn Korsmeyer, Cambridge:Blackwell, 1998, p.42.
① Ibid.
② Ibid.PP 42.43.
③ 刘悦笛：《分析美学史》,北京：北京大学出版社,2009年,第212页。
① Arthur Danto, "The Artworld," in Aesthetics:Big Questions, ed. Carolyn Korsmeyer, Cambridge:Blackwell, 1998, p.43.
① Arthur Danto, After the End of Art:Contemporary Art and the Pale of History, Princeton University Press,1997, p.95.
① Ibid. p.196.
② Arthur Danto, The Abuse of Beauty:Aesthetics and the Concept of Art, Chicago and La Salle:Open Court,2003, p.25.
① Arthur Danto, The Transfiguration of the Commonplace, Cambridge:Harvard University Press,1981, p.125.
② Noel Carroll, Beyond Aesthetics:Philosophical Essays, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2006, p.98.
① Richard Wollheim, "Danto's Gallery of Indiscernibles," Mark Rollins, ed. Danto and his Critics, Blackwell Publishing,1993, pp.29-30.
① Arthur Danto, The Transfiguration of the Commonplace, Cambridge:Harvard University Press,1981, pp.1-2.
① Richard Wollheim, "Danto's Gallery of Indiscernibles," Mark Rollins, ed. Danto and his Critics, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing,1993, pp.28-38.
② Arthur Danto, The Transfiguration of the Commonplace, Cambridge:Harvard University Press,1981, p.125.
① Arthur Danto, Beyond the Brillo Box:The Visual Arts in Post-historical Perspective. New York:Farrar Straus Giroux,1992, p.112.
① Nelson Goodman, Languages of Art:An Approach to a Theory of Symbols, Indianapolis:The Bobbs-Merrill Company,1968, pp.3-25.
② Arthur Danto, The Transfiguration of the Commonplace, Cambridge:Harvard University Press,1981, pp. 101-102.
③ Arthur Danto, The Transfiguration of the Commonplace, Cambridge:Harvard University Press,1981, pp. 138-139.
④ Noel Carroll, "Essence, Expression, and History:Arthur Danto's Philosophy," Mark Rollins, ed. Danto and his Critics, Oxford:Blackwell Publishing,1993, p.100.
① Arthur Danto, The Transfiguration of the Commonplace, Cambridge:Harvard University Press,1981, p.3.
② Arthur Danto, The Madonna of the Future:Essays in a Pluralistic Art World, New York:Farrar, Straus and Giroux,2000, p.ⅹⅹ.
③ Arthur Danto, The Abuse of Beauty:Aesthetics and the Concept of Art, Chicago and La Salle:Open Court,2003, p.25.
① Arthur Danto, "The Transfiguration of the Commonplace," The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol.33, No.2 (Winter 1974),p.146.
① 丹托：《艺术的终结》,欧阳英译,南京：江苏人民出版社,2005,44-45页。
② 文艺复兴时期的荷兰画家,擅长以日常生活为题材的风俗画。
① Icarus是希腊神话中著名工匠和建筑师Daedalus(代达罗斯)之子,父子二人被克里特岛(Crete)国王Minos(米诺斯)囚禁在岛上。父亲用羽毛和蜡制成翅膀欲和儿子一起逃离,他警告carus飞行时不要靠近太阳。然而Icarus忘记了父亲的警告越飞越高,最后终因离太阳太近,强烈的阳光致使蜡翼融化而坠海身亡。
② Arthur Danto, The Transfiguration of the Commonplace, Cambridge:Harvard University Press,1981, pp. 115-118.
③ Suprematism至上主义,也称绝对主义,是20世纪初出现的纯几何图形绘画运动,1913年由俄国画家马列维奇((Kazimir S. Malevich)首倡。
① Arthur Danto, The Madonna of the Future:Essays in a Pluralistic Art World, New York:Farrar, Straus and Giroux,2000, p. ⅹⅹ.
② 丹托：《艺术的终结》,欧阳英译,南京：江苏人民出版社,2005,第33页。
③ 同上,第51页。
② Arthur Danto, The Transfiguration of the Commonplace, Cambridge:Harvard University Press,1981, pp.
① Noel Carroll, "Danto, Style and Intention," The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol.53, No.3,1995, pp. 252-253.
② 丹托：《艺术的终结》,欧阳英译,南京：江苏人民出版社,2005,第51页。
③ 同上,第48页。
① Arthur Danto, The Transfiguration of the Commonplace, Cambridge:Harvard University Press,1981, pp. 125-126.
② Robert Stecker,
③ Arthur Danto, "Responses and Replies," Mark Rollins, ed. Danto and his Critics, Oxford:Blackwell Publishing,1993,p.201.转引自张冰：《丹托的艺术终结观研究》,北京：中国社会科学出版社,2012,第165页。
① 丹托：《艺术的终结》,欧阳英译,南京：江苏人民出版社,2005,第58页。
② Peg Brand and Myles Brand, "Surface and Deep Interpretation." Mark Rollins, ed. Danto and his Critics, Oxford:Blackwell Publishing,1993, p.72.
① The Battle of Anghiari壁画《安吉里之战》是达·芬奇取材于15世纪佛罗伦萨和米兰之间的战争而创作的,是达·芬奇少有的关于军事题材的美术作品。据记载,这幅作品已经在16世纪中叶被毁,但一些专家则认为它存在于世。近几年来,意大利艺术历史教授莫瑞希奥·塞拉西尼(Maurizio Seracini)及其带领的团队在经过一系列研究后宣称,《安吉里之战》并未被毁,而是藏于佛罗伦萨韦奇奥宫(Palazzo Vecchio)的墙壁内。
② 丹托：《艺术的终结》,欧阳英译,南京：江苏人民出版社,2005,第76页。
① Arthur Danto, The Philosophical Disenfranchisement of Art, New York:Columbia University Press,1986, p.52.
② Peg Brand and Myles Brand, "Surface and Deep Interpretation." Mark Rollins, ed. Danto and his Critics, Oxford:Blackwell Publishing,1993, p.77.
③ 麦克·毕德罗：美国当代画家、雕塑家和行为艺术家,他擅长在精确复制毕加索、马蒂斯、杜尚、波洛克、沃霍尔等艺术大师的代表作的基础上进行再创作。
① 毕德罗的这件名作曾在巴黎现代艺术博物馆(Musee d'Art Moderne)于2010年举办的题为"Seconde Main"(“二手”)的展览中参展。在这次展览中,众多20世纪当代艺术精品的复制品与真品一同展出,其中包括彼德罗模仿毕加索、威廉·德·库宁的系列作品以及中国艺术家杨振中(Yang Zhenzhong)对辛迪·舍曼(Cindy Sherman)摄影作品的仿制。这次展览促使我们思考一个问题：临摹大师作品是艺术训练的重要环节,然而在追求创新和独特的艺术观念下,这种复制行为是否还具有颠覆性和创造性?
② Terry Barrett, Interpreting Art:Reflecting, Wondering, and Responding, Boston:McGraw-Hill,2003, p.204.
① Mark Rosenthal, Anselm Kiefer, New York:Prestel Publishing,1988, p.17.
① Ibid.p.104.
② Ibid.
③ Arthur Danto,"review of Anselm Kiefer," Nation,January 2,1989,pp.8.26.
④ Ibid.
① Arthur Danto, Beyond the Brillo Box:the visual arts in post-historical perspective, Berkeley:University of California Press,1992, p.37.
① 丹托：《艺术的终结》,欧阳英译,南京：江苏人民出版社,2005,3-4页。
② Arthur Danto, Beyond the Brillo Box:the visual arts in post-historical perspective, Berkeley:University of California Press,1992, p.38.
① Arthur Danto, Beyond the Brillo Box:the visual arts in post-historical perspective, Berkeley:University of California Press,1992, p.40.
① Arthur Danto, Beyond the Brillo Box:the visual arts in post-historical perspective, Berkeley:University of California Press,1992, p.40.
② Ibid.
① Michael Baxandall:英国文化史家、艺术史家、艺术批评家,曾任美国加州大学伯克利分校艺术史荣誉教授和Victoria and Albert博物馆建筑和雕塑系的助理监护人,被誉为20世纪西方最伟大的艺术史家之一,“新艺术史”学派推动者,在学界被公认为“视觉文化研究”的鼻祖。
② Arthur Danto, Beyond the Brillo Box:the visual arts in post-historical perspective, Berkeley:University of California Press,1992, p.42.
③ Ibid. p.41.
① 丹托：《艺术的终结》,欧阳英译,南京：江苏人民出版社,2005,第21页。
① 对于迪基的institutional theory of art (ITA),国内学界的几种主要译法包括：艺术“体制论”、“惯例论”、“习俗论”、“制度论”等等,本文为了避免ITA所指的混乱,即区别于总体意义上的“艺术体制论”和以及其他理论视角下的各种形态的“艺术体制论”,故将迪基的理论统译为“惯例论”。
② George Dickie, "Defining Art," American Philosophical Quarterly,1969, pp.253-256.
③ George Dickie, Aesthetics:An Introduction, Indianapolis:Pegasus,1971, pp.98-108.
④ George Dickie, Art and the Aesthetic:An Institutional Analysis, Ithaca, NY:Cornell University Press,1974.
⑤ George Dickie, The Art Circle, New York:Haven,1984.
⑥ George Dickie, Art and Value, Malden:Blackwell Publishers Inc.,2001, p.52.
① 刘悦笛：《分析美学史》,北京：北京大学出版社,2009年,第258页。
② George Dickie, "The Myth of the Aesthetic Attitude," American Philosophical Quarterly,1964.
③ Noel Carroll, Beyond Aesthetics:Philosophical Essays, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2001, p.2.
④ Marcia Muelder Eaton, Basic Issues in Aesthetics, Belmont:Wadsworth Publishing Company,1988, p.4.
① Warren Steinkraus, Philosophy of Art, Beverly Hills:Benziger,1974, p.21.
① 安妮·谢泼德：《美学——艺术哲学引论》,艾彦译,沈阳：辽宁教育出版社,1998年,101—102页。
② Gary Iseminger, "Aesthetic Experience," in Oxford Handbook of Aesthetics, Jerrold Levinson ed, New York: Oxford University Press,2003, pp.99-100.
① I. A. Richards, Principles of Literary Criticism (Routledge Classics), New York and London:Routledge,2001, p. 10.
② Ibid. pp.9-10.
③ 朱狄：《当代西方艺术哲学》,武汉：武汉大学出版社,2007年,第308页。
③ Marshall Cohen, "Appearance and the Aesthetic Attitude," Journal of Philosophy, Vol.56 No.23. Nov.5, 1959, pp.915-926.
① Ibid. p.926.
② Marshall Cohen, "Aesthetic Essence," in Philosophy in America:Essays, Max Black ed., Ithaca:Cornell University Press, p.120.
① Edward Bullogh, "'Psychical Distance' as a Factor in Art and as an Aesthetic Principle," British Journal of Psychology, Vol.5(2), June 1912, pp.87-118.
② 在以海船为主要世界旅行交通工具的二十世纪初来说,很容易理解布洛举这个例子的实际意义。另外布洛发表这篇论文的时间是1912年,正是泰坦尼克号遇难的那一年。
① 参见Sheila Dawson, "'Distancing'as an Aesthetic Principle," Australasian Journal of Philosophy, vol.39,1961, pp.155-174.
② George Dickie, "The Myth of the Aesthetic Attitude," in Aesthetics:Classic Reading from Western Tradition, Dabney Townsend ed., Beijing:Peking University Press,2002, p.311.
① David A. White, "The Metaphysics of Disinterestedness:Shaftesbury and Kant," The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol.32. No.3 (Winter),1973, p.239.
② 康德：《判断力批判》(上卷),宗白华译,北京：商务印书馆,1985年,第47页。
③ 译文可参见乔治·迪基：《审美的起源：审美鉴赏和审美态度》,载于《美学译文》(2),中国社会科学院哲学所美学室编,北京：中国社会科学出版社,1982年,第5-6页。
④ George Dickie, Art and the Aesthetic:An Institutional Analysis, Ithaca and London:Cornell University Press, 1974, p.59.
① Jerome Stolnitz, Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art Criticism:A Critical Introduction, Boston:Houghton Mifflin, 1960, pp.34-38.
② Michael Kirby, "The Aesthetics of the Avant-garde," in Aesthetics (Sources in Philosophy, a MacMillan Series), Jerome Stolnitz ed., New York:MacMillan Company,1965, pp.47-49.
① George Dickie, "The Myth of the Aesthetic Attitude," in Aesthetics:Classic Reading from Western Tradition, Dabney Townsend ed., Beijing:Peking University Press,2002, pp.313-314.
① Ibid. p.321.
② A work of art in the descriptive sense is 1) an artifact 2) upon which society or some sub group of a society has conferred the status of candidate for appreciation. George Dickie, "Defining Art," American Philosophical Quarterly 6 (1969):p.252.
① A work of art in the classificatory sense is 1) an artifact 2) upon which some person or persons acting on behalf of a certain social institution (the artworld) has conferred the status of candidate for appreciation. George Dickie: Aesthetics:An Anthology. Indianapolis:Pegasus,1971, p.101.
② A work of art in the classificatory sense is 1) an artifact 2) a set of the aspects of which has had conferred upon it the status of candidate for appreciation by some person or persons acting on behalf of a certain social institution (the artworld). George Dickie, Art and the Aesthetic:An Institutional Analysis, Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press,1974, p.34.
③ George Dickie, Art and the Aesthetic:An Institutional Analysis, Ithaca and London:Cornell University Press,
① George Dickie, Art and the Aesthetic:An Institutional Analysis, Ithaca and London:Cornell University Press, 1974, p.29.
① George Dickie, Introduction to Aesthetics:An Analytic Approach. New York and Oxford:Oxford University Press,1997, p.83.
① George Dickie, The Art Circle:A Theory of Art, Evanston:Chicago Spectrum Press,1997, p.44.
① Thomas C. Ryckman, "Dickie on Artifactuality," The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol.47, No.2 (Spring),1989, p.175.
② George Dickie, The Art Circle:A Theory of Art, Evanston:Chicago Spectrum Press,1997, p.45.
① George Dickie, Art and Value, Malden:Blackwell Publishers Inc.,2001, p.58.
② 芝加哥艺术学院：建校于1866年,美国顶尖的艺术教育机构之一,由博物馆和学校两部分组成,其博物馆以收藏大量印象派作品和美国艺术品而著称。
① George Dickie, Art and Value, Malden:Blackwell Publishers Inc.,2001, p.58.
② Ibid.
① Ibid. p.22.
② Morris Weitz, "The Role of Theory in Aesthetics," in Aesthetics:Classic Readings from Western Tradition, ed. Dabney Townsended, Beijing:Peking University Press,2002, p.304.
① George Dickie, Richard Sclafani and Ronald Roblin eds., Aesthetics:a critical anthology, New York:St. Martin's Press,1989.
② 康斯坦丁·布朗库西：生于罗马尼亚,后定居法国,曾入巴黎美术学院学习,做过罗丹的助手。受毕加索立体主义绘画的启发对雕塑领域进行了革命性开拓,用金属、石块和木料等材料创作了造型极为简化和单纯的几何造型的抽象雕塑,主要作品有《吻》和《空中之鸟》等。被誉为20世纪现代雕塑的先驱,现代抽象艺术大师。
② George Dickie, Art and the Aesthetic:An Institutional Analysis, Ithaca and London:Cornell University Press, 1974, p.25.
① Ibid.p.27.
② Ibid.pp.40.41.
③ George Dickie,Evaluating Art,Philadelphia:Temple University Press,1988.
① George Dickie,Art and Value,Malden:Blackwell Publishers Inc.,2001,pp.56.57.
① Ibid. p.29.
② Arthur Danto, Transfiguration of the Commonplace:A Philosophy of Art, Cambridge:Harvard University Press, 1981, p. viii.
③ 对于二者理论体系之取径的根本差异,在本章第二节已有详细讨论。
③ George Dickie, "A Tale of Two Artworlds," in Danto and His Critics, Mark Rollins ed., Malden:John Wiley & Sons Inc.,2012, p.111.
① George Dickie, Art and the Aesthetic:An Institutional Analysis, Ithaca and London:Cornell University Press, 1974, p.31, p.35.
② Ibid. p.33.
① Ibid. pp.37-38.
② Catherine Lord, "Convention and Dickie's Institutional Theory of Art," British Journal of Aesthetics,1980, Vol. 20(4), p.322.
① George Dickie, Art and the Aesthetic:An Institutional Analysis, Ithaca and London:Cornell University Press, 1974, p.38.
② Ibid. p.49.
① 美国当代著名雕塑家、作曲家。
② George Dickie, Art and the Aesthetic:An Institutional Analysis, Ithaca and London:Cornell University Press, 1974, p.40.
① Ibid.
② Ibid. pp.40-41.
③ Ted Cohen, "The Possibility of Art:Remarks on a Proposal by Dickie," Philosophical Review, January 1973, pp. 69-82.
① George Dickie, Art and the Aesthetic:An Institutional Analysis, Ithaca and London:Cornell University Press, 1974, p.42.
① George Dickie, "Defining Art:Intension and Extension," in Peter Kivy ed., The Blackwell Guide to Aesthetics, Oxford:Blackwell,2004, pp.55-58.
① 参见Timothy Binkely, "Deciding about Art," in Lars Aagaard-Mogensen ed., Culture and Art, Atlantic Highlands, N.J.:Humanities Press,1976, pp.90-109; "Piece:Contra Aesthetics," The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism (35),1977.
② 参见T. J. Diffy, The Republic of Art and Other Essays, New York:Peter Lang,1991, pp.39-52.
③ 参见Arthur Danto, "The Artworld," Journal of Philosophy 61 (1964); "The Transfiguration of the Commonplace," Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 35 (1974).
④ 参见George Dickie, The Art Circle:A Theory of Art, New York:Haven,1984.
⑤ 参见Jerrold Levinson, Music, Art, and Metaphysics, Ithaca, N.Y.:Cornell University Press,1990.
⑥ Louis Groarke, "An Intensional Definition of Art:Christening Theories Versus Petit Essentialism," Journal of Value Inquiry, Mar.2001, Vol.35, p.96.
⑦ Saul A. Kripke, Naming and Necessity, Cambridge:Harvard University Press,2003, p.107.
① Arthur Danto, The Transfiguration of the Commonplace:A Philosophy of Art, Cambridge:Harvard University Press,1981, p.119.
① 参见Richard Wollheim, Art and Its Objects, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1980, pp.160-162; Melvin Rader, "Dickie and Socrates on Definitions," Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol.32,1974; Donald Walhout, "Nature and Function of Art," British Journal of Aesthetics, Vol.26,1986.
② Leo Groarke, C. Tindale et al., Good Reasoning Matters, Toronto:McClelland & Stewart,1989, p.262.
③ Louis Groarke, "An Intensional Definition of Art:Christening Theories Versus Petit Essentialism," Journal of Value Inquiry, Mar.2001, Vol.35, p.98.
① Noel Carroll, Philosophy of Art:A contemporary introduction, London and New York:Routledge,1999, pp. 231-232.
① George Dickie, The Art Circle:A Theory of Art, Evanston:Chicago Spectrum Press,1997, p.7.
① Richard Wollheim, Painting as An Art, Princeton:Princeton University Press,1987, p.15.
② George Dickie, The Art Circle:A Theory of Art, Evanston:Chicago Spectrum Press,1997, p.60.
① George Dickie, Art and Value, Malden:Blackwell Publishers Inc.,2001, p.66.
② Stephen Davies, Definitions of Art, Ithaca:Cornell University Press,1991, p.84
③ Ibid. p.87.
① George Dickie, Art and Value, Malden:Blackwell Publishers Inc.,2001, p.39.
② George Dickie, The Art Circle:A Theory of Art, Evanston:Chicago Spectrum Press,1997, p.51.
① Monroe Beardsley, "Is Art Essentially Institutional?" in Culture and Art, Lars Aagaard-Mogensen, ed. Atlantic Highlands:Humanities Press,1976, p.202.
② George Dickie, The Art Circle:A Theory of Art, Evanston:Chicago Spectrum Press,1997, p.52.
③ Jeffrey Wieand, "Can There Be an Institutional Theory of Art?" Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol.39. 1981, p.409.
① George Dickie, The Art Circle:A Theory of Art, Evanston:Chicago Spectrum Press,1997, p.52.
② Ibid. p.67.
③ Timothy Binkley, "Deciding about Art," Culture and Art, Lars Aagaard-Mogensen, ed. Atlantic Highlands: Humanities Press,1976, pp.90-109.
① Ibid. p.95.
② George Dickie, The Art Circle:A Theory of Art, Evanston:Chicago Spectrum Press,1997, p.60.
① Monroe Beardsley, "Is Art Essentially Institutional?" in Culture and Art, Lars Aagaard-Mogensen, ed. Atlantic Highlands:Humanities Press,1976, p.196.
② George Dickie, The Art Circle:A Theory of Art, Evanston:Chicago Spectrum Press,1997, p.50.
① George Dickie, Introduction to Aesthetics:An Analytic Approach, New York:Oxford University Press,1997, p. 89.
② Ibid. p.90.
③ George Dickie, The Art Circle:A Theory of Art, Evanston:Chicago Spectrum Press,1997, p.66.
① Ibid. p.75.
② Ibid. p.82.
③ George Dickie, "The Institutional Theory of Art," in Theories of Art Today, Noel Carroll ed., Madison: University of Wisconsin Press,2000, p.98.
① Ibid. p.101.
② Noel Carroll, "Identifying Art," in Institutions of Art:Reconsiderations of George Dickie's Philosophy, Robert J. Yanal, University Park:Pennsylvania State University Press,1994, pp.12-13.
① George Dickie, The Art Circle:A Theory of Art, Evanston:Chicago Spectrum Press,1997, p.84.
② Ibid.
③ George Dickie, Introduction to Aesthetics:An Analytic Approach, New York:Oxford University Press,1997, p. 92.
① George Dickie, The Art Circle:A Theory of Art, Evanston:Chicago Spectrum Press,1997, p.82.
② Garry L. Hagberg, "The Institutional Theory of Art:Theory and Antitheory," A Companion to Art Theory, Paul Smith and Carolyn Wilde eds. Oxford:Blackwell,2002, p.487.
① Arthur Danto, The Transfiguration of the Commonplace, Cambridge:Harvard University Press,1981, p.99.
① Garry L. Hagberg, "The Institutional Theory of Art:Theory and Antitheory," A Companion to Art Theory, Paul Smith and Carolyn Wilde eds. Oxford:Blackwell,2002, p.499.
① Arthur Danto, The Transfiguration of the Commonplace, Cambridge:Harvard University Press,1981, pp.77-78.
② Marcia M. Eaton, Basic Issues in Aesthetics, Belmont:Wadsworth,1988, p.92.
③ Ian Heywood, Social Theories of Art:A Critique, London:Macmillan Press LTD,1997, p.12.
① Robert J. Yanal:preface to Institutions of Art:Reconsiderations of George Dickie's Philosophy, ed. Robert J. Yanal, University Park:Pennsylvania State University Press,2004.
② 彭锋：《回归——当代美学的11个问题》,北京：北京大学出版社,2009年,282—283页。
① George Dickie, "Defining Art:Intension and Extension," in The Blackwell Guide to Aesthetics, Peter Kivy ed., Oxford:Blackwell,2004, p.55.
② Ibid. p.58.
③ Wladyslaw Tatarkiewicz, A History of Six Ideas:An Essay in Aesthetics, The Hague:Martinus Nijhoff; Warsaw: Polish Scientific Publishers,1980, p.45.
① Richard H. Bell, "Giacometti's Art as a Judgment on Culture," The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 47. No.1,1989, p.15.
① Stephen Davies, "Functional and Procedural Definitions of Art," in James O. Young ed., Aesthetics:Critical Concepts in Philosophy, London and New York:Routledge,2005. p.86.
① Noel Carroll, "Essence, Expression, and History:Arthur Danto's Philosophy of Art," in Danto and His Critics, ed. Mark Rollins, Cambridge:Basil Blackwell Ltd.,1993, pp.99-100.
① George Dickie, "Art:Function or Procedure-Nature or Culture?", in The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol.55, No.1,1997, pp.27-28.
① Robert Stecker, "Aesthetics and Culture," in Concepts of Culture Art, Politics, and Society, Adam Muller ed., Calgary:University of Calgary Press,2005.
② Marcia M. Eaton, "A Sustainable Definition of 'Art'," in Theories of Art Today, Noel Carroll ed., Madison:The University of Wisconsin Press,2000, p.141.
① x is a work of art if and only if 1. x is an artifact and 2. x is treated in aesthetically relevant ways; that is, x is treated in such a way that someone who is fluent in a culture is led to direct attention to intrinsic properties of x considered worthy of attention (perception and/or reflection) within that culture and 3. when someone has an aesthetic experience of x, he or she realizes that the cause of the experience is an intrinsic property of x considered worthy of attention within the culture. Marcia M. Eaton, "A Sustainable Definition of'Art'," in Theories of Art Today, Noel Carroll ed., Madison:The University of Wisconsin Press,2000, p.146.
② Ibid. p.145.
① Ibid. p.157.
② Joseph Margolis, Art and Philosophy, Atlantic Highlands:Humanities Press,1980, p.41.
③ Ibid. p.46.
① 朱立元、张德兴：《现代西方美学流派评述》,上海：上海人民出版社,1988年,第220页。
① Richard Shusterman, ed., "Analytic Aesthetics," The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism,1987:46 X (Extra).
① Noel Carroll, Philosophy of Art, London and New York:Routledge,1999, pp.231-232.
艾布拉姆斯：《镜与灯：浪漫主义文论及批评传统》,郦稚牛、张照进、童庆生译,北京：北京大学出版社,1989。
埃利亚斯：《莫扎特：社会学视野下的音乐天才》,桂林：广西师范大学出版社,2006.
埃尼施：《作为艺术家》,吴启雯、李晓畅译,北京：文化艺术出版社,2005。
艾因瑞恩胡弗：《美国艺术博物馆——精英主义与民族主义》,金眉译,湖南美术出版社,2007。
鲍曼：《立法者与阐释者》,洪涛译,上海：上海人民出版社,2000。
——：《共同体》,欧阳景根译,南京：江苏人民出版社,2003。
本雅明：《机械复制时代的艺术作品》,王才勇译,杭州：浙江摄影出版社,1993。
布迪厄：《艺术的法则》,刘晖译,北京：中央编译出版社,2001。
比格尔：《先锋派理论》,高建平译,北京：商务印书馆,2002.
——：《文学体制与现代化》,周宪译,国外社会科学,1998年第四期。
曹砚黛：《“艺术界”与“艺术惯例”论意义初论》,社会科学辑刊,2009年第4期。
岛子：《后现代艺术系谱》,重庆：重庆出版社,2001.
丹纳：《艺术哲学》,傅雷译,天津：天津社会科学出版社,2004.
丹托：《艺术的终结》,欧阳英译,南京：江苏人民出版社,2001.
——：《美的滥用》,王春辰译,南京：江苏人民出版社,2007.
——：《艺术的终结之后——当代艺术与历史的界限》,王春辰译,南京：江苏人民出版社,2007。
——：《寻常物的嬗变：一种关于艺术的哲学》,陈岸瑛译,南京：江苏人民出版社,2012。
迪基：《何为艺术?》,李普曼编《当代美学》,邓鹏译,北京：光明日报出版社,1986。
——：《艺术界》,程介未译,朱立元编《二十世纪西方美学经典文本》(第三卷),上海：复旦大学出版社,2001。
——：《审美的起源：审美鉴赏和审美态度》,朱狄译,载中国社会科学院哲学研究所美学研究室编《美学译文》(2),北京：中国社会科学出版社,1982。
弗莱：《塞尚及其画风的发展》,沈语冰译,桂林：广西师范大学出版社,2009。
费瑟斯通：《消费文化与后现代主义》,刘精明译,南京：译林出版社,2000。
冈特：《美的历险》,肖聿译,南京：江苏教育出版社,2005。
贡布里希：《艺术的故事》,范景中译,南宁：广西美术出版社,2008。
——：《艺术与错觉：图像再现的心理学研究》,林夕、李本正、范景中译,杭州：浙江摄影出版社,1987。
——：《文艺复兴：西方艺术的伟大时代》,李本正、范景中选编,杭州：中国美术学院出版社,2000。
——：《理想与偶像——价值在历史和艺术中的地位》,范景中、曹意强、周书田译,上海：上海人民美术出版社,1989。
古辛娜：《分析美学评析》,李昭时译,北京：东方出版社,1990。
哈贝马斯：《公共领域的结构转型》,曹卫东等译,上海：学林出版社,1999。
豪泽尔：《艺术社会学》,居延安编译,上海：学林出版社,1987。
胡健：《艺术习俗：一种界定艺术的理论框架》,思想战线,2004年第2期。
霍夫曼：《现代艺术的激变》,薛华译,桂林：广西师范大学出版社,2003。
吉登斯：《社会的构成：结构化理论大纲》,李康、李猛译,北京：生活·读书·新知三联书店,1998。
蒋孔阳主编：《二十世纪西方美学名著选》,上海：复旦大学出版社,
卡比斯库：《艺术的终结》,吴啸雷译,北京：北京大学出版社,2009.
卡罗尔：《超越美学》,李媛媛译,北京：商务印书馆,2006.
卡林内斯库：《现代性的五副面孔》,顾爱斌、李瑞华译,北京：商务印书馆, 2002。
克兰：《文化生产：媒体与都市艺术》,赵国新译,南京：译林出版社,2001。
克里普克：《命名与必然性》,梅文译,上海译文出版社,1988。
库恩：《科学革命的结构》,金吾伦、胡新和译,北京：北京大学出版社,2003.
利奥塔：《后现代状况——关于知识的报告》,岛子等译,湖南美术出版社,1996。
李佃来：《公共领域与生活世界——哈贝马斯市民社会理论研究》,北京：人民出版社,2008.
刘程：《维特根斯坦对分析美学的影响和启示》,华中师范大学学报,2004年5月。
刘悦笛：《分析美学史》,北京：北京大学出版社,2009。
罗钢、刘象愚主编：《文化研究读本》,上海：上海三联书店,2001.
曼海姆：《重建时代的人与社会》,张旅平译,北京：生活·读书·新知三联书店,2002。
默克罗比：《后现代主义与大众文化》,田晓菲译,北京：中央编译出版社,2001。
彭锋：《回归：当代美学的11个问题》,北京：北京大学出版社,2009。
——：《从艺术的新定义看艺术的多学科研究》,北方美术,2008年第3期。
彭玉斌：《文学制度·文学体制·文学机制》,运城学院学报,2006年2月。
齐马：《社会学批评概论》,吴岳添译,桂林：广西师范大学出版社,1993。
瑞泽尔：《后现代社会理论》,谢中立译,北京：华夏出版社,2003。
邵亦杨：《后现代之后——后前卫视觉艺术》,上海：上海人民美术出版社,2008。
沈语冰：《二十世纪艺术批评》,杭州：中国美术学院出版社,2003。
孙振华、鲁虹主编：《艺术与社会——26位著名批评家谈中国当代艺术的问题》,长沙：湖南美术出版社,2005。
孙艳秋：《艺术定义的新可能——丹托的“艺术界”之思》,中国社会科学院 研究生院学报,2009年第2期。
陶东风、金元浦、高丙中主编：《文化研究》第4辑,北京：中央编译出版社,2003。
特纳：《布莱克威尔社会学理论指南》,李康译,上海：上海人民出版社,2003。
——：《社会学理论的结构》,杭州：浙江人民出版社,1987。
滕尼斯：《共同体与社会——纯粹社会学的基本概念》,林荣远译,北京：商务印书馆,1989。
汪民安主编：《文化研究关键词》,南京：江苏人民出版社,2007。
王一川主编：《新编美学教程》,上海：复旦大学出版社,2008。
威廉斯：《文化与社会》,吴松江、张文定译,北京：北京大学出版社。
——：《关键词：文化与社会的词汇》,刘建基译,北京：生活·读书·新知三联书店,2005。
维特根斯坦：《哲学研究》,汤潮、范光棣译,北京：生活·读书·新知三联书店,1992。
维基主编：《美学指南》,彭锋等译,南京：南京大学出版社,2008。
沃霍尔：《沃霍尔论艺》,陈建军编著,北京：人民美术出版社,2002。
沃尔夫：《艺术的社会生产》,董学文、王葵译,北京：华夏出版社,1990。
——：《文化研究与文化社会学》,顾晓辉译,载陶东风、金元浦、高丙中主编《文化研究》第4辑,北京：中央编译出版社,2003。
吴水平：《走向求解艺术的习俗之途》,浙江学刊,1999年第5期。
亚历山大：《艺术社会学》,章浩、沈杨译,南京：江苏美术出版社,2009。
解玉斌：《论观念艺术的当代价值》,文艺评论,2010年第6期。
休斯、克雷勒：《社会学和我们》,周杨,邱文平译,上海：上海社会科学院出版社,2008。
徐陶：《当代分析美学视野中的艺术定义》,同济大学学报,2008年12月。
——：《对阿瑟·丹托艺术哲学的分析与反思》,重庆工商大学学报,2009年4月。
谢泼德：《美学：艺术哲学引论》,艾彦译,沈阳：辽宁教育出版社,1998。
殷曼楟：《艺术界理论建构及其现代意义》,北京：社会科学文献出版社,2009。
——：《作为一个美学问题的艺术“命名"》,深圳大学学报,2006年第1期。
——：《艺术体制与纯美学的去魅》,江汉论坛,2005年第11月。
——：《现代性视野中的艺术体制与艺术家》,求是学刊,2006第1期。
——：《“天才”艺术家的形成及其“去魅”》,艺术百家,2004年第6期。
张冰：《丹托艺术观的哲学立场》,兰州学刊,2008年第4期。
张意：《文化与符号权利——布尔迪厄的文化社会学导论》,北京：中国社会科学出版社,2005。
周宪：《激进的美学锋芒》,北京：中国人民大学出版社,2003。
——：《艺术世界的文化社会学分析》,《社会学研究》,2003年第4期。
——：《审美现代性批判》,北京：商务印书馆,2005。
——：《文化现代性与美学问题》,北京：中国人民大学出版社,2005。
——：《二十世纪西方美学》,北京：高等教育出版社,2003。
——：《文化表征与文化研究》,北京：北京大学出版社,2007。
朱光潜：《西方美学史》,北京：中国长安出版社,2007。
朱狄：《当代西方美学》,北京：人民出版社,1985。
——：《当代艺术哲学》,武汉：武汉大学出版社,2007。
朱立元、张德兴：《现代西方美学流派述评》,上海：上海人民出版社,1988。
朱立元主编：《西方美学名著提要》,南昌：江西人民出版社,2002。
Agassi, Joseph and Jarvie, Ian, A Critical Rationalist Aesthetics, New York: Rodopi B. V.,2008.
Alexander, Victoria D., Sociology of the Arts:Exploring Fine and Popular Forms, Blackwell,2003.
Andina, Tiziana, Arthur Danto:Philosopher of Pop, Newcastle upon Tyne: Camebridge Scholars Publishing,2011.
Baldwin, Elaine, Introducing Cultural Studies, Beijing:Peking University Press, 2005.
Bartel, Timothy, "Appreciation and Dickie's Definition of Art," British Journal Aesthetics, Vol.19, No.1,1979.
Becker, Howard S., Art Worlds, University of California Press,1982.
——, "Art Worlds Revisited," Sociological Forum, Vol.5, No.3,1990.
——, "Art as Collective Action," American Sociological Review, Vol.41. No.1, Feb.1976.
——, "Arts and Crafts," The American Journal of Sociology, Vol.83, No.4,1978.
——, "The Politics of Presentation:Goffman and Total Institutions," Symbolic Interaction, Fall 2003, vol.26.4.
Berube, Michael, ed., The Aesthetics of Cultural Studies, Oxford:Blackwell, 2005.
Blizek, L. William, "An Institutional Theory of Art," British Journal of Aesthetics, Vol.14, No.2,1974.
Burger, Peter, and Burger, Christa, The Institution of Art, Loren Kruger, trans., University of Nebraska Press,1992.
Burger, Peter, Theory of the Avant-Garde, Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press,1984.
Burke, Jill, Changing Patrons:Social Identity and the Visual Arts in Renaissance Florence, Penn State University Press,2004.
Carrier, David, Artwriting, University of Massachusetts Press,1987.
——, "Gombrich on Art Historical Explanations," Leonardo, Vol.16, No.2,1983.
——, "Gombrich and Danto on Defining Art," The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol.54, No.3,1996.
——, "Danto and His Critics:After the End of Art and Art History," Vol.37, No.4, 1998.
——, "Art Without its Objects?", British Journal of Aesthetics, Vol.19, No.1, 1979.
Carroll, Noel, Philosophy of Art, New York:Routledge,1999.
——, "The End of Art?", History and Theory, Vol.37, No.4,1998.
Danto, Arthur C., After the End of Art, Princeton:Princeton University Press, 1997.
——, "The End of Art:A Philosophical Defense," History and Theory, Vol.37, 1998.
——, The Transfiguration of the Commonplace, Cambridge:Harvard University Press,1981.
——, Beyond the Brillo Box, Berkeley:University of California Press,1992.
——, "The Artworld, " Aesthetics:The Big Questions, ed. Carolyn Korsmeyer, Blackwell,1998.
——, "From Philosophy to Art Criticism," American Art, Vol.16, No.1,2002.
Crowther, Paul, Defining Art, Creating the Canon:Artistic Value in an Era of Doubt, Oxford:Clarendon Press,2007.
Davies, Stephen, "A Defense of the Institutional Definition of Art," Southern Journal of Philosophy, Vol.26, No.3,1988.
Debeljak, Ales, Reluctant Modernity:The Institution of Art and its Historical Forms, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, INC.,1998.
Dickie, George, Evaluating Art, Philadelphia:Temple University Press,1988.
——, "The Myth of the Aesthetic Attitude," American Philosophical Quarterly, Vol.1, No.1 (Jan.,1964), pp.56-65.
——, "Beardsley's Phantom Aesthetic Experience," The Journal of Philosophy, Vol.62, No.5 (Mar.4,1965), pp.129-136.
——, "Art Narrowly and Broadly Speaking," American Philosophical Quarterly, Vol.5, No.1 (Jan.,1968), pp.71-77.
——, "Beardsley's Theory of Aesthetic Experience," Journal of Aesthetic Education, Vol.8, No.2 (Apr.,1974) pp.13-23.
——, "Defining Art," American Philosophical Quarterly, Vol.6, No.3 (Jul.,1969), pp.253-256.
——, "A Reply to Margolis," The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol.34, No.2 (Winter,1975), pp.229-231.
——, "What is Anti-Art?" The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol.33, No. 4 (Summer,1975), pp.419-421.
——, "Why Not the Both?," The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol.45, No.3 (Spring,1987), p.297.
——, "Beardsley, Sibley and Critical Principles," The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol.46, No.2 (Winter,1987), pp.229-237.
——, "Physical Distance:In a Fog at Sea," British Journal of Aesthetics, Vol.13, No.1,1973.
——, "An Artistic Misunderstanding," The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol.51, No.1 (Winter,1993), pp.69-71.
——, "Evaluating Art," British Journal of Aesthetics, Vol.25, No.1,1985.
——, "Art:Function or Procedure:Nature or Culture?," The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol.55, No.1 (winter,1997), pp.19-28.
——, "A Reply to Noel Carroll," The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 55, No.3 (Summer,1997), pp.311-312.
——, "Wollheim's Dilemma," British Journal of Aesthetics, Vol.32, April 1998.
——, Art and Value:Themes in the Philosophy of Art, New York:Blackwell,2001.
——, Art and Aesthetic:An Institutional Analysis, Ithaca and London:Cornell University Press,1974.
——, Introduction to Aesthetics:An Analytic Approach, Oxford:Oxford University Press,1997.
——, The Art Circle:A Theory of Art, Chicago Spectrum Press,1997.
Diffey, T. J., The Republic of Art, British Journal of Aesthetics, Vol.9, No.2,1969.
——, "On Defining Art," British Journal of Aesthetics, Vol.19, No.1,1979.
DiMaggio, Paul, "Classification in Art," American Sociological Review, Vol.52, No.4,1987.
——, "The Sociology of Art Comes of Age," Contemporary Sociology, Vol.12, No.3,1983.
Eldridge, Richard, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Art, New York:Cambridge University Press,2003.
Eler, Alexander, "Dickie's Institutional Theory and the 'Openness' of the Concept of Art," Postgraduate Journal of Aesthetics, Vol.3, No.3,2006, pp.110-117.
Fletcher, James J., "Artificiality Broadly and Narrowly Speaking," Southern Journal of Philosophy, Vol.20, No.1,1982.
Forsey, Jane, "Philosophical Disenfranchisement in Danto's "The End of Art'," The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol.59, No.4,2001.
Griffin, Charles T. and Griffin, Brenda S., "Art as Collective Action," American Sociological Review, Vol.41, No.1,1976.
Groarke, Louis, "An Intentional Definition of Art:Christening Theories Versus Petit Essentialism," Journal of Value Inquiry, March 2001, vol.35.
Hagberg, Garry L., "The institutional Theory of Art:Theory and Antitheory." A Companion to Art Theory, Paul Smith, Carolyn Wilde eds., Blackwell,2002.
Harris, Jonathan, The New Art History:A Critical Introduction, London: Routledge,2001.
Harrington, Austin, Art and Social Theory, Cambridge:Polity Press,2004.
Hauser, Arnold, Social History of Art, New York:Taylor& Francis Routledge, 1999.
Horowitz, Gregg, and Huhn, Tom eds., The Wake of Art:Criticism, Philosophy and the Ends of Taste:Essays by Arthur C. Danto, Amsterdam:The Gordon and Breach Publishing Group,1998.
Hyman, Lawrence W., "A Defense of Aesthetic Experience:In Reply to George Dickie," British Journal of Aesthetics, Vol.26, No.1,1986.
Iseminger, Gary, "Aestheticism and Institutional Turn," Journal of Aesthetic Education, Vol.29, No.2,1995, pp.14-18.
Jones, Amelia, A Companion to Contemporary Art Since 1945, Oxford:Blackwell Publishing,2006.
Kapsis, Robert E., "Reputation Building and the Film Art World:the case of Alfred Hitchcock," Sociological Quarterly, Vol.30, Nol.1989.
Kelly, Michael, "Essentialism and Historicism in Danto's Philosophy of Art," History and Theory, Vol.37, No.4,1998.
Kivy, Peter, The Blackwell Guide to Aesthetics, Malden:Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004.
Kripke, Saul A., Naming and Necessity, Cambridge:Harvard University Press, 1972.
Kraut, Robert, Artworld Metaphysics, Oxford:Oxford University Press,2007.
Kuhn, Thomas S., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago:The University of Chicago Press,1962.
Lamarque, Peter, "The British Journal of Aesthetics:Forty Years on," British Journal of Aesthetics, Vol.40, No.1, Jan.2000.
Leddy, Thomas, "Practical George and Aesthete Jerome Meet the Aesthetic Object," Southern Journal of Philosophy, Vol.28, No.1,1990.
Levinson, Jerrold, "Defining Art Historically," British Journal of Aesthetics, Vol. 19, No.3,1979.
——, "Refining Art Historically," The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Winter 1989, Vol.47.1.
Lewis, David, Convention:A Philosophical Study, Maiden:Blackwell,2002.
Lord, Catherine, "Convention and Dickie's Institutional Theory of Art," British Journal of Aesthetics, Vol.20, No.4,1980.
——, "Indexicality, Not Circularity:Dickie's New Definition of Art," The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol.45, No.3,1987, pp.229-232.
Lorand, Ruth, Aesthetic Order:A Philosophy of Order, Beauty and Art, New York: Routledge,2000.
Maanen, Hans van, How to Study Artworlds:On the Societal Functioning of Social Values, Amsterdam:Amsterdam University Press,2009.
Mattick, Paul, Art in its Time:Theories and Practices of Modern Aesthetics, London:Routledge,2003.
Matravers, Derek, "The Institutional Theory:A Protean Creature," British Journal of Aesthetics, Vol.0, No.2, April 2000.
——, "Institutional Definitions and Reasons," British Journal of Aesthetics, Vol. 47, No.3, July 2007.
McGregor, Robert, "Dickie's Institutionalized Aesthetic," British Journal of Aesthetics, Vol.17, No.1,1977.
Mortensen, Preben, Art in the Social Order:The Making of the Modern Conception of Art, New York:State University of New York Press,1997.
Plummer, Ken and Becker, Howard, "Continuity and Change in Howard S. Becker's Work:An Interview with Howard S. Becker," Sociological Perspectives, Vol. 46, No.1,2003.
Robertson, Jean, Themes of Contemporary Art:Visual Art after 1980, New York: Oxford University Press,2009.
Rollins, Mark ed., Danto and His Critics, Oxford:John Wiley and Sons Inc,2012.
Ryckman, Thomas C., "Dickie on Artifactuality," The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol.47, No.2,1989, pp.175-177.
Sankowski, Edward, "Free Actions, Social Institutions, and the Definition of 'Art'", Philosophical Studies, Vol.37, No.1,1980.
Seel, Martin, "Two Comments on Arthur C. Danto's after the End of Art," History and Theory, Vol.37, No.4,1998.
Simonton, Dean Keith, Origins of Genius, Oxford:Oxford University Press,1999.
Smith, Paul and Wilde, Carolyn eds., A Companion to Art Theory, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd,2002.
Skidelsky, Edward, "But Is It Art? A New Look at the Institutional Theory of Art," Philosophy 82,2007, pp.259-273.
Stecker, Robert, "The End of an Institutional Definition of Art," British Journal of Aesthetics, Vol.26, No.2,1986.
Stock, Kathleen, New Waves in Aesthetics, New York:Pal grave Macmillan,2008.
Swartz, David, Culture and Power:The Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu. University of Chicago Press,1997.
Tanner, Jeremy, ed., The Sociology of Art:A Reader, Routledge,2003.
Ward, Frazer, "The Haunted Museum:Institutional Critique and Publicity," October, Vol.73,1995.
Wieand, Jefferey, "Duchamp and the Artworld," Critical Inquiry, Vol.8, No.1, 1981.
Williams, Raymond, The Sociology of Culture, The University of Chicago Press, 1995.
Wolcott, Anne, "Is What You See What You Get? A Postmodern Approach to Understanding Works of Art," Studies in Art Education, Vol.37, No.2,1996.
Yanal, Robert Y, Institutions of Art:Reconsiderations of George Dickie's Philosophy, Penn State Press,2004.
② Allan G. Johnson, The Blackwell Dictionary of Sociology, Blackwell,2000, from http: //www.xreferplus.com/entry/723945
① 彼得·比格尔：《先锋派理论》,高建平译,商务印书馆,2002,第88页。
② 彼得·比格尔：《文学体制与现代化》,周宪译,国外社会科学,1998年第4期,第53页。
① Howard S. Becker, Art Worlds, Berkeley and Los Angeles:University of California Press,1982, p.145.
① George Dickie, Art and Aesthetics:An Institutional Analysis, Ithaca, N. Y.:Cornell University Press,1974, p. 34.
① 迪基：《艺术界》,转载自朱立元总主编,李钧编《二十世纪西方美学经典文本》(第三卷),复旦大学出版社,2001,第810页。
② George Dickie, "Wollheim's Dilemma," British Journal of Aesthetics, Vol.32, April 1998, p.133.
② 朱狄：《当代西方艺术哲学》,武汉：武汉大学出版社,2007年,第109页。
① Marcia Muelder Eaton, Basic Issues in Aesthetics, Wadsworth Publishing Company,1988, p.93.
② 这一概念来自于republic of letters(也称commonwealth of letters),一般译为“文学界”、“文坛”,这里为了和丹托的“艺术界”(artworld)作出区分,姑且把republic of art译为“艺术共同体”。
③ T. J. Diffey, "The Republic of Art," British Journal of Aesthetics,1969:Apr., p.147.
④ Ibid.
⑤ T. J. Diffey, "The Republic of Art," British Journal of Aesthetics,1969:Apr., p.150.
① 莱文森的历史主义艺术定义是：艺术作品是一个被有意看作一件艺术作品的东西：以任何正确地看待在它之前存在的艺术作品的方式来看待。可以看出莱文森主张把艺术概念放到一定的历史背景中去考察,是一种“回溯式”(backward-looking)的概念,他认为一件人工制品成为艺术品的条件是它和过去已经存在着的艺术作品之间的联系。
② Jerrold Levinson, "Defining Art Historically," British Journal of Aesthetics, Vol.19, No.3,1979, p.233.
① Ibid.
② Jerrold Levinson, "Refining Art Historically," British Journal of Aesthetics, Vol.47, No.1,1989, p.27.
③ 在这本著作中,戴维斯还提到了艺术理论的另一重要转向：历史性理论,后者通过从过去和传统中去寻求合法性关联来确立艺术品资格,这种历史语境论的最典型代表就是列文森和卡罗尔(Noel Carroll)。
① 卡罗尔：《艺术、实践与叙事》,载《超越美学》,北京：商务印书馆,2006,103-104页。
② 卡罗尔：《艺术、实践与叙事》,载《超越美学》,北京：商务印书馆,2006,第104页。
③ 同上。
① Monroe Beardsley, Aesthetics:Problems in the Philosophy of Criticism, Indianapolis:Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.,1981, p.298.
② 齐安·亚菲塔：《西港现代艺术：失去范式的文化误区》,载《学术月刊》,2009年第9期,第102页。
① 彭锋：《实用主义美学的新视野——访舒斯特曼教授》,载《哲学动态》,2008年第1期,第62页。
① 颜勇、黄虹：《西方设计：一部为生活设计艺术的历史》,长沙：湖南科学技术出版社,2010年,530-531页。
① 引自http://wenku.baidu.com/view/7110825c3c 1 ec5da50e27020.html.
② 解玉斌：《论观念艺术的当代价值》,《文艺评论》,2010年第6期,第10页。
③ 如意大利艺术家皮埃罗·曼佐尼(Piero Manzoni)那臭名昭著却卖出十一万欧元的作品"Artist's Shit"——艺术家将自己的大便分装在90个罐头里,并将其密封、编号、签名,以高于黄金市价的价格出售。
① 王瑞芸：《西方当代艺术理论前沿(一)》,北京：《美术观察》2010年第7期,第122页。
② 解玉斌：《论观念艺术的当代价值》,《文艺评论》,2010年第6期,第14页。
③ 丹托：《艺术的终结之后》,王春辰译,南京：江苏人民出版社,2007,第一章15-16页。
① 丹托曾多次详尽阐述过其“艺术终结”的真正含义：“艺术史的宏大叙事——在西方,但最后不单单是西方——就是有一种模仿的时代,后面跟着意识形态的时代,接着是我们的后历史时代。在这一时代,只要合格,什么都行。每一个这样的时代是以不同的批评结构为特征的。传统的或模仿的时期的艺术批评建立在视觉真实上。意识形态时代的艺术批评的结构则是一种我自己力求摆脱的批评：从特征上讲,它把它关于什么是艺术的哲学观念建立在它所接受的艺术(真实的)与任何不是真正艺术的别的东西之间的排外性区别上。后历史时期的特点是哲学与艺术之间的方法的分离,这意味着后历史时期的艺术批评必须和后历史主义自身一样是多元的。……在我们的叙事里,首先只有模仿是艺术,然后几种东西是艺术,但每一个都试图消灭它的竞争者,接着最后,显而易见的是没有了任何的风格限制或哲学限制。没有艺术品必须体现的特殊方式。我应该说,这就是当前宏大叙事中的最后时刻,这就是故事的终结。”他在另一处也表达了同样的意思：“没有什么比任何其他东西更正确。没有单一的方向。实际上,没有方向。这就是当我在20世纪80年代中期开始评论艺术时我所说的艺术的终结的含义。并不是艺术死了或绘画不再被人们画了,而是叙事结构的艺术史已经结束了。”引自《艺术的终结之后》,第51页和第137页。
② 丹托：《艺术的终结之后》,王春辰译,南京：江苏人民出版社,2007,第30页。
① E.H.Gombrich:The Story of Art,New York:Phaidon Press Inc,2007,pp.600.601.
① 丹托：《美的滥用》,王春辰译,南京：江苏人民出版社,2007年,导言第2页。
① E. H. Gombrich:The Story of Art, New York:Phaidon Press Inc,2007, p.15.
① 高建平：“中国文学理论的凝结、坚守与突进”(代序),《当代中国文艺理论热点研究》,北京：中国社会科学出版社,2011年,12-14页。
② 鲍姆加登：《美学》,北京：文化艺术出版社,1987年,第13页。
① 克莱夫·贝尔：《艺术》,薛华译,南京：江苏教育出版社,2005年,第3页。
① 维特根斯坦：《哲学研究》,李步楼译,北京：商务印书馆,2002年,第48页。
① Morris Weitz, "The Role of Theory in Aesthetics," in Aesthetics:Classic Readings from Western Tradition, ed. Dabney Townsended, Beijing:Peking University Press,2002, p.298.
① 指的是威廉·埃尔顿(William Elton),他于1954年主编的文集《美学和语言》(Aesthetics and Language)是分析美学史上一部奠基性的著作,被视为是分析美学的纲领性文件,它确立了要将“美学的方法”当作一种“科学的方法”的准则。这部开拓性的文集认定传统美学已经陷入“概括陷阱”和“混乱类比”,指出哲学应该致力于诊断并根治在美学上长期存在的混乱,揭露出其“本质主义的诱因”,哲学应为美学提供某种范本,以作为美学分析的基本参照。
② 瓦·阿·古辛娜：《分析美学评析》,李昭时译,北京：东方出版社,1990年,第75页。
③ 奥古斯汀：《忏悔录》,周士良译,商务印书馆,1981。
① W.E.肯尼克：《传统美学是否基于一个错误?》,载于《当代美学》,李普曼编著,北京：光明日报出版社,1986年,225-226页。
① 瓦·阿·古辛娜：《分析美学评析》,李昭时译,北京：东方出版社,1990年,第70页。
① M.曼德尔鲍姆：《家族相似及有关艺术的概括》,载于《当代美学》,李普曼编著,北京：光明日报出版社,1986年,251-252页。
① 同上,第257页。
② 同上,第255页。
③ Peter Lamarque and Stein Haugom Olsen, Aesthetics and the Philosophy of Art:The Analytic Tradition, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing,2004, p.10.
① 刘悦笛：《分析美学史》,北京：北京大学出版社,2009年,第296页。
① Arthur Danto, "The Artworld," in Aesthetics:Big Questions, ed. Carolyn Korsmeyer, Cambridge:Blackwell, 1998, p.40.
② 迪基：《何为艺术?》,邓鹏译,载李普曼编《当代美学》,北京：光明日报出版社,1986,第110页。
① 丹托：《美的滥用》,王春辰译,南京：江苏人民出版社,2007年,导言第3页。
① 就笔者所掌握的材料,将"The Art world"这篇文章选编或收录的编著包括Peter Lamaeque和Stein Haugom Olsen编著的Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art, Dabney Townsend 的 Aesthetics:Classic Readings from Western Tradition, Thomas E. Wartenberg的The Nature of Art:An Anthology以及Carolyn Korsmeyer编选的Aesthetics:The Big Questions。
① Arthur Danto, "The Artworld," in Aesthetics:Big Questions, ed. Carolyn Korsmeyer, Cambridge:Blackwell, 1998, p.33.
② Ibid. p.34.
① Roger Fry, "The French Post-Impressionists," in Vision and Design, London:Chatto and Windus,1920, p.157.
② Arthur Danto, "The Artworld," in Aesthetics:Big Questions, ed. Carolyn Korsmeyer, Cambridge:Blackwell, 1998, p.35.
③ Ibid. PP 35-36.
① 这一虚构人物作为一个艺术愤青在丹托后来的著作《寻常物的嬗变》中再次出现。
② 宙克西斯：公元前5世纪的希腊著名画家,因其对明暗光影的运用和日常绘画而闻名,相传他画的葡萄栩栩如生,以至于引来小鸟啄食。
③ Arthur Danto, "The Artworld," in Aesthetics:Big Questions, ed. Carolyn Korsmeyer, Cambridge:Blackwell, 1998, p.36.
① Ibid.p.37.
② 也译成艺术确认、艺术辨识、艺术识别、艺术认定等。
② Arthur Danto, "The Artworld," in Aesthetics:Big Questions, ed. Carolyn Korsmeyer, Cambridge:Blackwell, 1998, p.38.
① Arthur Danto, "The Artworld," in Aesthetics:Big Questions, ed. Carolyn Korsmeyer, Cambridge:Blackwell, 1998. d.40.
② Tbid,p.20
① Arthur Danto, "The Artworld," in Aesthetics:Big Questions, ed. Carolyn Korsmeyer, Cambridge:Blackwell, 1998, p.42.
① Ibid.
② Ibid.PP 42.43.
③ 刘悦笛：《分析美学史》,北京：北京大学出版社,2009年,第212页。
① Arthur Danto, "The Artworld," in Aesthetics:Big Questions, ed. Carolyn Korsmeyer, Cambridge:Blackwell, 1998, p.43.
① Arthur Danto, After the End of Art:Contemporary Art and the Pale of History, Princeton University Press,1997, p.95.
① Ibid. p.196.
② Arthur Danto, The Abuse of Beauty:Aesthetics and the Concept of Art, Chicago and La Salle:Open Court,2003, p.25.
① Arthur Danto, The Transfiguration of the Commonplace, Cambridge:Harvard University Press,1981, p.125.
② Noel Carroll, Beyond Aesthetics:Philosophical Essays, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2006, p.98.
① Richard Wollheim, "Danto's Gallery of Indiscernibles," Mark Rollins, ed. Danto and his Critics, Blackwell Publishing,1993, pp.29-30.
① Arthur Danto, The Transfiguration of the Commonplace, Cambridge:Harvard University Press,1981, pp.1-2.
① Richard Wollheim, "Danto's Gallery of Indiscernibles," Mark Rollins, ed. Danto and his Critics, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing,1993, pp.28-38.
② Arthur Danto, The Transfiguration of the Commonplace, Cambridge:Harvard University Press,1981, p.125.
① Arthur Danto, Beyond the Brillo Box:The Visual Arts in Post-historical Perspective. New York:Farrar Straus Giroux,1992, p.112.
① Nelson Goodman, Languages of Art:An Approach to a Theory of Symbols, Indianapolis:The Bobbs-Merrill Company,1968, pp.3-25.
② Arthur Danto, The Transfiguration of the Commonplace, Cambridge:Harvard University Press,1981, pp. 101-102.
③ Arthur Danto, The Transfiguration of the Commonplace, Cambridge:Harvard University Press,1981, pp. 138-139.
④ Noel Carroll, "Essence, Expression, and History:Arthur Danto's Philosophy," Mark Rollins, ed. Danto and his Critics, Oxford:Blackwell Publishing,1993, p.100.
① Arthur Danto, The Transfiguration of the Commonplace, Cambridge:Harvard University Press,1981, p.3.
② Arthur Danto, The Madonna of the Future:Essays in a Pluralistic Art World, New York:Farrar, Straus and Giroux,2000, p.ⅹⅹ.
③ Arthur Danto, The Abuse of Beauty:Aesthetics and the Concept of Art, Chicago and La Salle:Open Court,2003, p.25.
① Arthur Danto, "The Transfiguration of the Commonplace," The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol.33, No.2 (Winter 1974),p.146.
① 丹托：《艺术的终结》,欧阳英译,南京：江苏人民出版社,2005,44-45页。
② 文艺复兴时期的荷兰画家,擅长以日常生活为题材的风俗画。
① Icarus是希腊神话中著名工匠和建筑师Daedalus(代达罗斯)之子,父子二人被克里特岛(Crete)国王Minos(米诺斯)囚禁在岛上。父亲用羽毛和蜡制成翅膀欲和儿子一起逃离,他警告carus飞行时不要靠近太阳。然而Icarus忘记了父亲的警告越飞越高,最后终因离太阳太近,强烈的阳光致使蜡翼融化而坠海身亡。
② Arthur Danto, The Transfiguration of the Commonplace, Cambridge:Harvard University Press,1981, pp. 115-118.
③ Suprematism至上主义,也称绝对主义,是20世纪初出现的纯几何图形绘画运动,1913年由俄国画家马列维奇((Kazimir S. Malevich)首倡。
① Arthur Danto, The Madonna of the Future:Essays in a Pluralistic Art World, New York:Farrar, Straus and Giroux,2000, p. ⅹⅹ.
② 丹托：《艺术的终结》,欧阳英译,南京：江苏人民出版社,2005,第33页。
③ 同上,第51页。
② Arthur Danto, The Transfiguration of the Commonplace, Cambridge:Harvard University Press,1981, pp.
① Noel Carroll, "Danto, Style and Intention," The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol.53, No.3,1995, pp. 252-253.
② 丹托：《艺术的终结》,欧阳英译,南京：江苏人民出版社,2005,第51页。
③ 同上,第48页。
① Arthur Danto, The Transfiguration of the Commonplace, Cambridge:Harvard University Press,1981, pp. 125-126.
② Robert Stecker,
③ Arthur Danto, "Responses and Replies," Mark Rollins, ed. Danto and his Critics, Oxford:Blackwell Publishing,1993,p.201.转引自张冰：《丹托的艺术终结观研究》,北京：中国社会科学出版社,2012,第165页。
① 丹托：《艺术的终结》,欧阳英译,南京：江苏人民出版社,2005,第58页。
② Peg Brand and Myles Brand, "Surface and Deep Interpretation." Mark Rollins, ed. Danto and his Critics, Oxford:Blackwell Publishing,1993, p.72.
① The Battle of Anghiari壁画《安吉里之战》是达·芬奇取材于15世纪佛罗伦萨和米兰之间的战争而创作的,是达·芬奇少有的关于军事题材的美术作品。据记载,这幅作品已经在16世纪中叶被毁,但一些专家则认为它存在于世。近几年来,意大利艺术历史教授莫瑞希奥·塞拉西尼(Maurizio Seracini)及其带领的团队在经过一系列研究后宣称,《安吉里之战》并未被毁,而是藏于佛罗伦萨韦奇奥宫(Palazzo Vecchio)的墙壁内。
② 丹托：《艺术的终结》,欧阳英译,南京：江苏人民出版社,2005,第76页。
① Arthur Danto, The Philosophical Disenfranchisement of Art, New York:Columbia University Press,1986, p.52.
② Peg Brand and Myles Brand, "Surface and Deep Interpretation." Mark Rollins, ed. Danto and his Critics, Oxford:Blackwell Publishing,1993, p.77.
③ 麦克·毕德罗：美国当代画家、雕塑家和行为艺术家,他擅长在精确复制毕加索、马蒂斯、杜尚、波洛克、沃霍尔等艺术大师的代表作的基础上进行再创作。
① 毕德罗的这件名作曾在巴黎现代艺术博物馆(Musee d'Art Moderne)于2010年举办的题为"Seconde Main"(“二手”)的展览中参展。在这次展览中,众多20世纪当代艺术精品的复制品与真品一同展出,其中包括彼德罗模仿毕加索、威廉·德·库宁的系列作品以及中国艺术家杨振中(Yang Zhenzhong)对辛迪·舍曼(Cindy Sherman)摄影作品的仿制。这次展览促使我们思考一个问题：临摹大师作品是艺术训练的重要环节,然而在追求创新和独特的艺术观念下,这种复制行为是否还具有颠覆性和创造性?
② Terry Barrett, Interpreting Art:Reflecting, Wondering, and Responding, Boston:McGraw-Hill,2003, p.204.
① Mark Rosenthal, Anselm Kiefer, New York:Prestel Publishing,1988, p.17.
① Ibid.p.104.
② Ibid.
③ Arthur Danto,"review of Anselm Kiefer," Nation,January 2,1989,pp.8.26.
④ Ibid.
① Arthur Danto, Beyond the Brillo Box:the visual arts in post-historical perspective, Berkeley:University of California Press,1992, p.37.
① 丹托：《艺术的终结》,欧阳英译,南京：江苏人民出版社,2005,3-4页。
② Arthur Danto, Beyond the Brillo Box:the visual arts in post-historical perspective, Berkeley:University of California Press,1992, p.38.
① Arthur Danto, Beyond the Brillo Box:the visual arts in post-historical perspective, Berkeley:University of California Press,1992, p.40.
① Arthur Danto, Beyond the Brillo Box:the visual arts in post-historical perspective, Berkeley:University of California Press,1992, p.40.
② Ibid.
① Michael Baxandall:英国文化史家、艺术史家、艺术批评家,曾任美国加州大学伯克利分校艺术史荣誉教授和Victoria and Albert博物馆建筑和雕塑系的助理监护人,被誉为20世纪西方最伟大的艺术史家之一,“新艺术史”学派推动者,在学界被公认为“视觉文化研究”的鼻祖。
② Arthur Danto, Beyond the Brillo Box:the visual arts in post-historical perspective, Berkeley:University of California Press,1992, p.42.
③ Ibid. p.41.
① 丹托：《艺术的终结》,欧阳英译,南京：江苏人民出版社,2005,第21页。
① 对于迪基的institutional theory of art (ITA),国内学界的几种主要译法包括：艺术“体制论”、“惯例论”、“习俗论”、“制度论”等等,本文为了避免ITA所指的混乱,即区别于总体意义上的“艺术体制论”和以及其他理论视角下的各种形态的“艺术体制论”,故将迪基的理论统译为“惯例论”。
② George Dickie, "Defining Art," American Philosophical Quarterly,1969, pp.253-256.
③ George Dickie, Aesthetics:An Introduction, Indianapolis:Pegasus,1971, pp.98-108.
④ George Dickie, Art and the Aesthetic:An Institutional Analysis, Ithaca, NY:Cornell University Press,1974.
⑤ George Dickie, The Art Circle, New York:Haven,1984.
⑥ George Dickie, Art and Value, Malden:Blackwell Publishers Inc.,2001, p.52.
① 刘悦笛：《分析美学史》,北京：北京大学出版社,2009年,第258页。
② George Dickie, "The Myth of the Aesthetic Attitude," American Philosophical Quarterly,1964.
③ Noel Carroll, Beyond Aesthetics:Philosophical Essays, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2001, p.2.
④ Marcia Muelder Eaton, Basic Issues in Aesthetics, Belmont:Wadsworth Publishing Company,1988, p.4.
① Warren Steinkraus, Philosophy of Art, Beverly Hills:Benziger,1974, p.21.
① 安妮·谢泼德：《美学——艺术哲学引论》,艾彦译,沈阳：辽宁教育出版社,1998年,101—102页。
② Gary Iseminger, "Aesthetic Experience," in Oxford Handbook of Aesthetics, Jerrold Levinson ed, New York: Oxford University Press,2003, pp.99-100.
① I. A. Richards, Principles of Literary Criticism (Routledge Classics), New York and London:Routledge,2001, p. 10.
② Ibid. pp.9-10.
③ 朱狄：《当代西方艺术哲学》,武汉：武汉大学出版社,2007年,第308页。
③ Marshall Cohen, "Appearance and the Aesthetic Attitude," Journal of Philosophy, Vol.56 No.23. Nov.5, 1959, pp.915-926.
① Ibid. p.926.
② Marshall Cohen, "Aesthetic Essence," in Philosophy in America:Essays, Max Black ed., Ithaca:Cornell University Press, p.120.
① Edward Bullogh, "'Psychical Distance' as a Factor in Art and as an Aesthetic Principle," British Journal of Psychology, Vol.5(2), June 1912, pp.87-118.
② 在以海船为主要世界旅行交通工具的二十世纪初来说,很容易理解布洛举这个例子的实际意义。另外布洛发表这篇论文的时间是1912年,正是泰坦尼克号遇难的那一年。
① 参见Sheila Dawson, "'Distancing'as an Aesthetic Principle," Australasian Journal of Philosophy, vol.39,1961, pp.155-174.
② George Dickie, "The Myth of the Aesthetic Attitude," in Aesthetics:Classic Reading from Western Tradition, Dabney Townsend ed., Beijing:Peking University Press,2002, p.311.
① David A. White, "The Metaphysics of Disinterestedness:Shaftesbury and Kant," The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol.32. No.3 (Winter),1973, p.239.
② 康德：《判断力批判》(上卷),宗白华译,北京：商务印书馆,1985年,第47页。
③ 译文可参见乔治·迪基：《审美的起源：审美鉴赏和审美态度》,载于《美学译文》(2),中国社会科学院哲学所美学室编,北京：中国社会科学出版社,1982年,第5-6页。
④ George Dickie, Art and the Aesthetic:An Institutional Analysis, Ithaca and London:Cornell University Press, 1974, p.59.
① Jerome Stolnitz, Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art Criticism:A Critical Introduction, Boston:Houghton Mifflin, 1960, pp.34-38.
② Michael Kirby, "The Aesthetics of the Avant-garde," in Aesthetics (Sources in Philosophy, a MacMillan Series), Jerome Stolnitz ed., New York:MacMillan Company,1965, pp.47-49.
① George Dickie, "The Myth of the Aesthetic Attitude," in Aesthetics:Classic Reading from Western Tradition, Dabney Townsend ed., Beijing:Peking University Press,2002, pp.313-314.
① Ibid. p.321.
② A work of art in the descriptive sense is 1) an artifact 2) upon which society or some sub group of a society has conferred the status of candidate for appreciation. George Dickie, "Defining Art," American Philosophical Quarterly 6 (1969):p.252.
① A work of art in the classificatory sense is 1) an artifact 2) upon which some person or persons acting on behalf of a certain social institution (the artworld) has conferred the status of candidate for appreciation. George Dickie: Aesthetics:An Anthology. Indianapolis:Pegasus,1971, p.101.
② A work of art in the classificatory sense is 1) an artifact 2) a set of the aspects of which has had conferred upon it the status of candidate for appreciation by some person or persons acting on behalf of a certain social institution (the artworld). George Dickie, Art and the Aesthetic:An Institutional Analysis, Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press,1974, p.34.
③ George Dickie, Art and the Aesthetic:An Institutional Analysis, Ithaca and London:Cornell University Press,
① George Dickie, Art and the Aesthetic:An Institutional Analysis, Ithaca and London:Cornell University Press, 1974, p.29.
① George Dickie, Introduction to Aesthetics:An Analytic Approach. New York and Oxford:Oxford University Press,1997, p.83.
① George Dickie, The Art Circle:A Theory of Art, Evanston:Chicago Spectrum Press,1997, p.44.
① Thomas C. Ryckman, "Dickie on Artifactuality," The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol.47, No.2 (Spring),1989, p.175.
② George Dickie, The Art Circle:A Theory of Art, Evanston:Chicago Spectrum Press,1997, p.45.
① George Dickie, Art and Value, Malden:Blackwell Publishers Inc.,2001, p.58.
② 芝加哥艺术学院：建校于1866年,美国顶尖的艺术教育机构之一,由博物馆和学校两部分组成,其博物馆以收藏大量印象派作品和美国艺术品而著称。
① George Dickie, Art and Value, Malden:Blackwell Publishers Inc.,2001, p.58.
② Ibid.
① Ibid. p.22.
② Morris Weitz, "The Role of Theory in Aesthetics," in Aesthetics:Classic Readings from Western Tradition, ed. Dabney Townsended, Beijing:Peking University Press,2002, p.304.
① George Dickie, Richard Sclafani and Ronald Roblin eds., Aesthetics:a critical anthology, New York:St. Martin's Press,1989.
② 康斯坦丁·布朗库西：生于罗马尼亚,后定居法国,曾入巴黎美术学院学习,做过罗丹的助手。受毕加索立体主义绘画的启发对雕塑领域进行了革命性开拓,用金属、石块和木料等材料创作了造型极为简化和单纯的几何造型的抽象雕塑,主要作品有《吻》和《空中之鸟》等。被誉为20世纪现代雕塑的先驱,现代抽象艺术大师。
② George Dickie, Art and the Aesthetic:An Institutional Analysis, Ithaca and London:Cornell University Press, 1974, p.25.
① Ibid.p.27.
② Ibid.pp.40.41.
③ George Dickie,Evaluating Art,Philadelphia:Temple University Press,1988.
① George Dickie,Art and Value,Malden:Blackwell Publishers Inc.,2001,pp.56.57.
① Ibid. p.29.
② Arthur Danto, Transfiguration of the Commonplace:A Philosophy of Art, Cambridge:Harvard University Press, 1981, p. viii.
③ 对于二者理论体系之取径的根本差异,在本章第二节已有详细讨论。
③ George Dickie, "A Tale of Two Artworlds," in Danto and His Critics, Mark Rollins ed., Malden:John Wiley & Sons Inc.,2012, p.111.
① George Dickie, Art and the Aesthetic:An Institutional Analysis, Ithaca and London:Cornell University Press, 1974, p.31, p.35.
② Ibid. p.33.
① Ibid. pp.37-38.
② Catherine Lord, "Convention and Dickie's Institutional Theory of Art," British Journal of Aesthetics,1980, Vol. 20(4), p.322.
① George Dickie, Art and the Aesthetic:An Institutional Analysis, Ithaca and London:Cornell University Press, 1974, p.38.
② Ibid. p.49.
① 美国当代著名雕塑家、作曲家。
② George Dickie, Art and the Aesthetic:An Institutional Analysis, Ithaca and London:Cornell University Press, 1974, p.40.
① Ibid.
② Ibid. pp.40-41.
③ Ted Cohen, "The Possibility of Art:Remarks on a Proposal by Dickie," Philosophical Review, January 1973, pp. 69-82.
① George Dickie, Art and the Aesthetic:An Institutional Analysis, Ithaca and London:Cornell University Press, 1974, p.42.
① George Dickie, "Defining Art:Intension and Extension," in Peter Kivy ed., The Blackwell Guide to Aesthetics, Oxford:Blackwell,2004, pp.55-58.
① 参见Timothy Binkely, "Deciding about Art," in Lars Aagaard-Mogensen ed., Culture and Art, Atlantic Highlands, N.J.:Humanities Press,1976, pp.90-109; "Piece:Contra Aesthetics," The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism (35),1977.
② 参见T. J. Diffy, The Republic of Art and Other Essays, New York:Peter Lang,1991, pp.39-52.
③ 参见Arthur Danto, "The Artworld," Journal of Philosophy 61 (1964); "The Transfiguration of the Commonplace," Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 35 (1974).
④ 参见George Dickie, The Art Circle:A Theory of Art, New York:Haven,1984.
⑤ 参见Jerrold Levinson, Music, Art, and Metaphysics, Ithaca, N.Y.:Cornell University Press,1990.
⑥ Louis Groarke, "An Intensional Definition of Art:Christening Theories Versus Petit Essentialism," Journal of Value Inquiry, Mar.2001, Vol.35, p.96.
⑦ Saul A. Kripke, Naming and Necessity, Cambridge:Harvard University Press,2003, p.107.
① Arthur Danto, The Transfiguration of the Commonplace:A Philosophy of Art, Cambridge:Harvard University Press,1981, p.119.
① 参见Richard Wollheim, Art and Its Objects, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1980, pp.160-162; Melvin Rader, "Dickie and Socrates on Definitions," Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol.32,1974; Donald Walhout, "Nature and Function of Art," British Journal of Aesthetics, Vol.26,1986.
② Leo Groarke, C. Tindale et al., Good Reasoning Matters, Toronto:McClelland & Stewart,1989, p.262.
③ Louis Groarke, "An Intensional Definition of Art:Christening Theories Versus Petit Essentialism," Journal of Value Inquiry, Mar.2001, Vol.35, p.98.
① Noel Carroll, Philosophy of Art:A contemporary introduction, London and New York:Routledge,1999, pp. 231-232.
① George Dickie, The Art Circle:A Theory of Art, Evanston:Chicago Spectrum Press,1997, p.7.
① Richard Wollheim, Painting as An Art, Princeton:Princeton University Press,1987, p.15.
② George Dickie, The Art Circle:A Theory of Art, Evanston:Chicago Spectrum Press,1997, p.60.
① George Dickie, Art and Value, Malden:Blackwell Publishers Inc.,2001, p.66.
② Stephen Davies, Definitions of Art, Ithaca:Cornell University Press,1991, p.84
③ Ibid. p.87.
① George Dickie, Art and Value, Malden:Blackwell Publishers Inc.,2001, p.39.
② George Dickie, The Art Circle:A Theory of Art, Evanston:Chicago Spectrum Press,1997, p.51.
① Monroe Beardsley, "Is Art Essentially Institutional?" in Culture and Art, Lars Aagaard-Mogensen, ed. Atlantic Highlands:Humanities Press,1976, p.202.
② George Dickie, The Art Circle:A Theory of Art, Evanston:Chicago Spectrum Press,1997, p.52.
③ Jeffrey Wieand, "Can There Be an Institutional Theory of Art?" Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol.39. 1981, p.409.
① George Dickie, The Art Circle:A Theory of Art, Evanston:Chicago Spectrum Press,1997, p.52.
② Ibid. p.67.
③ Timothy Binkley, "Deciding about Art," Culture and Art, Lars Aagaard-Mogensen, ed. Atlantic Highlands: Humanities Press,1976, pp.90-109.
① Ibid. p.95.
② George Dickie, The Art Circle:A Theory of Art, Evanston:Chicago Spectrum Press,1997, p.60.
① Monroe Beardsley, "Is Art Essentially Institutional?" in Culture and Art, Lars Aagaard-Mogensen, ed. Atlantic Highlands:Humanities Press,1976, p.196.
② George Dickie, The Art Circle:A Theory of Art, Evanston:Chicago Spectrum Press,1997, p.50.
① George Dickie, Introduction to Aesthetics:An Analytic Approach, New York:Oxford University Press,1997, p. 89.
② Ibid. p.90.
③ George Dickie, The Art Circle:A Theory of Art, Evanston:Chicago Spectrum Press,1997, p.66.
① Ibid. p.75.
② Ibid. p.82.
③ George Dickie, "The Institutional Theory of Art," in Theories of Art Today, Noel Carroll ed., Madison: University of Wisconsin Press,2000, p.98.
① Ibid. p.101.
② Noel Carroll, "Identifying Art," in Institutions of Art:Reconsiderations of George Dickie's Philosophy, Robert J. Yanal, University Park:Pennsylvania State University Press,1994, pp.12-13.
① George Dickie, The Art Circle:A Theory of Art, Evanston:Chicago Spectrum Press,1997, p.84.
② Ibid.
③ George Dickie, Introduction to Aesthetics:An Analytic Approach, New York:Oxford University Press,1997, p. 92.
① George Dickie, The Art Circle:A Theory of Art, Evanston:Chicago Spectrum Press,1997, p.82.
② Garry L. Hagberg, "The Institutional Theory of Art:Theory and Antitheory," A Companion to Art Theory, Paul Smith and Carolyn Wilde eds. Oxford:Blackwell,2002, p.487.
① Arthur Danto, The Transfiguration of the Commonplace, Cambridge:Harvard University Press,1981, p.99.
① Garry L. Hagberg, "The Institutional Theory of Art:Theory and Antitheory," A Companion to Art Theory, Paul Smith and Carolyn Wilde eds. Oxford:Blackwell,2002, p.499.
① Arthur Danto, The Transfiguration of the Commonplace, Cambridge:Harvard University Press,1981, pp.77-78.
② Marcia M. Eaton, Basic Issues in Aesthetics, Belmont:Wadsworth,1988, p.92.
③ Ian Heywood, Social Theories of Art:A Critique, London:Macmillan Press LTD,1997, p.12.
① Robert J. Yanal:preface to Institutions of Art:Reconsiderations of George Dickie's Philosophy, ed. Robert J. Yanal, University Park:Pennsylvania State University Press,2004.
② 彭锋：《回归——当代美学的11个问题》,北京：北京大学出版社,2009年,282—283页。
① George Dickie, "Defining Art:Intension and Extension," in The Blackwell Guide to Aesthetics, Peter Kivy ed., Oxford:Blackwell,2004, p.55.
② Ibid. p.58.
③ Wladyslaw Tatarkiewicz, A History of Six Ideas:An Essay in Aesthetics, The Hague:Martinus Nijhoff; Warsaw: Polish Scientific Publishers,1980, p.45.
① Richard H. Bell, "Giacometti's Art as a Judgment on Culture," The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 47. No.1,1989, p.15.
① Stephen Davies, "Functional and Procedural Definitions of Art," in James O. Young ed., Aesthetics:Critical Concepts in Philosophy, London and New York:Routledge,2005. p.86.
① Noel Carroll, "Essence, Expression, and History:Arthur Danto's Philosophy of Art," in Danto and His Critics, ed. Mark Rollins, Cambridge:Basil Blackwell Ltd.,1993, pp.99-100.
① George Dickie, "Art:Function or Procedure-Nature or Culture?", in The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol.55, No.1,1997, pp.27-28.
① Robert Stecker, "Aesthetics and Culture," in Concepts of Culture Art, Politics, and Society, Adam Muller ed., Calgary:University of Calgary Press,2005.
② Marcia M. Eaton, "A Sustainable Definition of 'Art'," in Theories of Art Today, Noel Carroll ed., Madison:The University of Wisconsin Press,2000, p.141.
① x is a work of art if and only if 1. x is an artifact and 2. x is treated in aesthetically relevant ways; that is, x is treated in such a way that someone who is fluent in a culture is led to direct attention to intrinsic properties of x considered worthy of attention (perception and/or reflection) within that culture and 3. when someone has an aesthetic experience of x, he or she realizes that the cause of the experience is an intrinsic property of x considered worthy of attention within the culture. Marcia M. Eaton, "A Sustainable Definition of'Art'," in Theories of Art Today, Noel Carroll ed., Madison:The University of Wisconsin Press,2000, p.146.
② Ibid. p.145.
① Ibid. p.157.
② Joseph Margolis, Art and Philosophy, Atlantic Highlands:Humanities Press,1980, p.41.
③ Ibid. p.46.
① 朱立元、张德兴：《现代西方美学流派评述》,上海：上海人民出版社,1988年,第220页。
① Richard Shusterman, ed., "Analytic Aesthetics," The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism,1987:46 X (Extra).
① Noel Carroll, Philosophy of Art, London and New York:Routledge,1999, pp.231-232.
艾布拉姆斯：《镜与灯：浪漫主义文论及批评传统》,郦稚牛、张照进、童庆生译,北京：北京大学出版社,1989。
埃利亚斯：《莫扎特：社会学视野下的音乐天才》,桂林：广西师范大学出版社,2006.
埃尼施：《作为艺术家》,吴启雯、李晓畅译,北京：文化艺术出版社,2005。
艾因瑞恩胡弗：《美国艺术博物馆——精英主义与民族主义》,金眉译,湖南美术出版社,2007。
鲍曼：《立法者与阐释者》,洪涛译,上海：上海人民出版社,2000。
——：《共同体》,欧阳景根译,南京：江苏人民出版社,2003。
本雅明：《机械复制时代的艺术作品》,王才勇译,杭州：浙江摄影出版社,1993。
布迪厄：《艺术的法则》,刘晖译,北京：中央编译出版社,2001。
比格尔：《先锋派理论》,高建平译,北京：商务印书馆,2002.
——：《文学体制与现代化》,周宪译,国外社会科学,1998年第四期。
曹砚黛：《“艺术界”与“艺术惯例”论意义初论》,社会科学辑刊,2009年第4期。
岛子：《后现代艺术系谱》,重庆：重庆出版社,2001.
丹纳：《艺术哲学》,傅雷译,天津：天津社会科学出版社,2004.
丹托：《艺术的终结》,欧阳英译,南京：江苏人民出版社,2001.
——：《美的滥用》,王春辰译,南京：江苏人民出版社,2007.
——：《艺术的终结之后——当代艺术与历史的界限》,王春辰译,南京：江苏人民出版社,2007。
——：《寻常物的嬗变：一种关于艺术的哲学》,陈岸瑛译,南京：江苏人民出版社,2012。
迪基：《何为艺术?》,李普曼编《当代美学》,邓鹏译,北京：光明日报出版社,1986。
——：《艺术界》,程介未译,朱立元编《二十世纪西方美学经典文本》(第三卷),上海：复旦大学出版社,2001。
——：《审美的起源：审美鉴赏和审美态度》,朱狄译,载中国社会科学院哲学研究所美学研究室编《美学译文》(2),北京：中国社会科学出版社,1982。
弗莱：《塞尚及其画风的发展》,沈语冰译,桂林：广西师范大学出版社,2009。
费瑟斯通：《消费文化与后现代主义》,刘精明译,南京：译林出版社,2000。
冈特：《美的历险》,肖聿译,南京：江苏教育出版社,2005。
贡布里希：《艺术的故事》,范景中译,南宁：广西美术出版社,2008。
——：《艺术与错觉：图像再现的心理学研究》,林夕、李本正、范景中译,杭州：浙江摄影出版社,1987。
——：《文艺复兴：西方艺术的伟大时代》,李本正、范景中选编,杭州：中国美术学院出版社,2000。
——：《理想与偶像——价值在历史和艺术中的地位》,范景中、曹意强、周书田译,上海：上海人民美术出版社,1989。
古辛娜：《分析美学评析》,李昭时译,北京：东方出版社,1990。
哈贝马斯：《公共领域的结构转型》,曹卫东等译,上海：学林出版社,1999。
豪泽尔：《艺术社会学》,居延安编译,上海：学林出版社,1987。
胡健：《艺术习俗：一种界定艺术的理论框架》,思想战线,2004年第2期。
霍夫曼：《现代艺术的激变》,薛华译,桂林：广西师范大学出版社,2003。
吉登斯：《社会的构成：结构化理论大纲》,李康、李猛译,北京：生活·读书·新知三联书店,1998。
蒋孔阳主编：《二十世纪西方美学名著选》,上海：复旦大学出版社,
卡比斯库：《艺术的终结》,吴啸雷译,北京：北京大学出版社,2009.
卡罗尔：《超越美学》,李媛媛译,北京：商务印书馆,2006.
卡林内斯库：《现代性的五副面孔》,顾爱斌、李瑞华译,北京：商务印书馆, 2002。
克兰：《文化生产：媒体与都市艺术》,赵国新译,南京：译林出版社,2001。
克里普克：《命名与必然性》,梅文译,上海译文出版社,1988。
库恩：《科学革命的结构》,金吾伦、胡新和译,北京：北京大学出版社,2003.
利奥塔：《后现代状况——关于知识的报告》,岛子等译,湖南美术出版社,1996。
李佃来：《公共领域与生活世界——哈贝马斯市民社会理论研究》,北京：人民出版社,2008.
刘程：《维特根斯坦对分析美学的影响和启示》,华中师范大学学报,2004年5月。
刘悦笛：《分析美学史》,北京：北京大学出版社,2009。
罗钢、刘象愚主编：《文化研究读本》,上海：上海三联书店,2001.
曼海姆：《重建时代的人与社会》,张旅平译,北京：生活·读书·新知三联书店,2002。
默克罗比：《后现代主义与大众文化》,田晓菲译,北京：中央编译出版社,2001。
彭锋：《回归：当代美学的11个问题》,北京：北京大学出版社,2009。
——：《从艺术的新定义看艺术的多学科研究》,北方美术,2008年第3期。
彭玉斌：《文学制度·文学体制·文学机制》,运城学院学报,2006年2月。
齐马：《社会学批评概论》,吴岳添译,桂林：广西师范大学出版社,1993。
瑞泽尔：《后现代社会理论》,谢中立译,北京：华夏出版社,2003。
邵亦杨：《后现代之后——后前卫视觉艺术》,上海：上海人民美术出版社,2008。
沈语冰：《二十世纪艺术批评》,杭州：中国美术学院出版社,2003。
孙振华、鲁虹主编：《艺术与社会——26位著名批评家谈中国当代艺术的问题》,长沙：湖南美术出版社,2005。
孙艳秋：《艺术定义的新可能——丹托的“艺术界”之思》,中国社会科学院 研究生院学报,2009年第2期。
陶东风、金元浦、高丙中主编：《文化研究》第4辑,北京：中央编译出版社,2003。
特纳：《布莱克威尔社会学理论指南》,李康译,上海：上海人民出版社,2003。
——：《社会学理论的结构》,杭州：浙江人民出版社,1987。
滕尼斯：《共同体与社会——纯粹社会学的基本概念》,林荣远译,北京：商务印书馆,1989。
汪民安主编：《文化研究关键词》,南京：江苏人民出版社,2007。
王一川主编：《新编美学教程》,上海：复旦大学出版社,2008。
威廉斯：《文化与社会》,吴松江、张文定译,北京：北京大学出版社。
——：《关键词：文化与社会的词汇》,刘建基译,北京：生活·读书·新知三联书店,2005。
维特根斯坦：《哲学研究》,汤潮、范光棣译,北京：生活·读书·新知三联书店,1992。
维基主编：《美学指南》,彭锋等译,南京：南京大学出版社,2008。
沃霍尔：《沃霍尔论艺》,陈建军编著,北京：人民美术出版社,2002。
沃尔夫：《艺术的社会生产》,董学文、王葵译,北京：华夏出版社,1990。
——：《文化研究与文化社会学》,顾晓辉译,载陶东风、金元浦、高丙中主编《文化研究》第4辑,北京：中央编译出版社,2003。
吴水平：《走向求解艺术的习俗之途》,浙江学刊,1999年第5期。
亚历山大：《艺术社会学》,章浩、沈杨译,南京：江苏美术出版社,2009。
解玉斌：《论观念艺术的当代价值》,文艺评论,2010年第6期。
休斯、克雷勒：《社会学和我们》,周杨,邱文平译,上海：上海社会科学院出版社,2008。
徐陶：《当代分析美学视野中的艺术定义》,同济大学学报,2008年12月。
——：《对阿瑟·丹托艺术哲学的分析与反思》,重庆工商大学学报,2009年4月。
谢泼德：《美学：艺术哲学引论》,艾彦译,沈阳：辽宁教育出版社,1998。
殷曼楟：《艺术界理论建构及其现代意义》,北京：社会科学文献出版社,2009。
——：《作为一个美学问题的艺术“命名"》,深圳大学学报,2006年第1期。
——：《艺术体制与纯美学的去魅》,江汉论坛,2005年第11月。
——：《现代性视野中的艺术体制与艺术家》,求是学刊,2006第1期。
——：《“天才”艺术家的形成及其“去魅”》,艺术百家,2004年第6期。
张冰：《丹托艺术观的哲学立场》,兰州学刊,2008年第4期。
张意：《文化与符号权利——布尔迪厄的文化社会学导论》,北京：中国社会科学出版社,2005。
周宪：《激进的美学锋芒》,北京：中国人民大学出版社,2003。
——：《艺术世界的文化社会学分析》,《社会学研究》,2003年第4期。
——：《审美现代性批判》,北京：商务印书馆,2005。
——：《文化现代性与美学问题》,北京：中国人民大学出版社,2005。
——：《二十世纪西方美学》,北京：高等教育出版社,2003。
——：《文化表征与文化研究》,北京：北京大学出版社,2007。
朱光潜：《西方美学史》,北京：中国长安出版社,2007。
朱狄：《当代西方美学》,北京：人民出版社,1985。
——：《当代艺术哲学》,武汉：武汉大学出版社,2007。
朱立元、张德兴：《现代西方美学流派述评》,上海：上海人民出版社,1988。
朱立元主编：《西方美学名著提要》,南昌：江西人民出版社,2002。
Agassi, Joseph and Jarvie, Ian, A Critical Rationalist Aesthetics, New York: Rodopi B. V.,2008.
Alexander, Victoria D., Sociology of the Arts:Exploring Fine and Popular Forms, Blackwell,2003.
Andina, Tiziana, Arthur Danto:Philosopher of Pop, Newcastle upon Tyne: Camebridge Scholars Publishing,2011.
Baldwin, Elaine, Introducing Cultural Studies, Beijing:Peking University Press, 2005.
Bartel, Timothy, "Appreciation and Dickie's Definition of Art," British Journal Aesthetics, Vol.19, No.1,1979.
Becker, Howard S., Art Worlds, University of California Press,1982.
——, "Art Worlds Revisited," Sociological Forum, Vol.5, No.3,1990.
——, "Art as Collective Action," American Sociological Review, Vol.41. No.1, Feb.1976.
——, "Arts and Crafts," The American Journal of Sociology, Vol.83, No.4,1978.
——, "The Politics of Presentation:Goffman and Total Institutions," Symbolic Interaction, Fall 2003, vol.26.4.
Berube, Michael, ed., The Aesthetics of Cultural Studies, Oxford:Blackwell, 2005.
Blizek, L. William, "An Institutional Theory of Art," British Journal of Aesthetics, Vol.14, No.2,1974.
Burger, Peter, and Burger, Christa, The Institution of Art, Loren Kruger, trans., University of Nebraska Press,1992.
Burger, Peter, Theory of the Avant-Garde, Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press,1984.
Burke, Jill, Changing Patrons:Social Identity and the Visual Arts in Renaissance Florence, Penn State University Press,2004.
Carrier, David, Artwriting, University of Massachusetts Press,1987.
——, "Gombrich on Art Historical Explanations," Leonardo, Vol.16, No.2,1983.
——, "Gombrich and Danto on Defining Art," The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol.54, No.3,1996.
——, "Danto and His Critics:After the End of Art and Art History," Vol.37, No.4, 1998.
——, "Art Without its Objects?", British Journal of Aesthetics, Vol.19, No.1, 1979.
Carroll, Noel, Philosophy of Art, New York:Routledge,1999.
——, "The End of Art?", History and Theory, Vol.37, No.4,1998.
Danto, Arthur C., After the End of Art, Princeton:Princeton University Press, 1997.
——, "The End of Art:A Philosophical Defense," History and Theory, Vol.37, 1998.
——, The Transfiguration of the Commonplace, Cambridge:Harvard University Press,1981.
——, Beyond the Brillo Box, Berkeley:University of California Press,1992.
——, "The Artworld, " Aesthetics:The Big Questions, ed. Carolyn Korsmeyer, Blackwell,1998.
——, "From Philosophy to Art Criticism," American Art, Vol.16, No.1,2002.
Crowther, Paul, Defining Art, Creating the Canon:Artistic Value in an Era of Doubt, Oxford:Clarendon Press,2007.
Davies, Stephen, "A Defense of the Institutional Definition of Art," Southern Journal of Philosophy, Vol.26, No.3,1988.
Debeljak, Ales, Reluctant Modernity:The Institution of Art and its Historical Forms, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, INC.,1998.
Dickie, George, Evaluating Art, Philadelphia:Temple University Press,1988.
——, "The Myth of the Aesthetic Attitude," American Philosophical Quarterly, Vol.1, No.1 (Jan.,1964), pp.56-65.
——, "Beardsley's Phantom Aesthetic Experience," The Journal of Philosophy, Vol.62, No.5 (Mar.4,1965), pp.129-136.
——, "Art Narrowly and Broadly Speaking," American Philosophical Quarterly, Vol.5, No.1 (Jan.,1968), pp.71-77.
——, "Beardsley's Theory of Aesthetic Experience," Journal of Aesthetic Education, Vol.8, No.2 (Apr.,1974) pp.13-23.
——, "Defining Art," American Philosophical Quarterly, Vol.6, No.3 (Jul.,1969), pp.253-256.
——, "A Reply to Margolis," The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol.34, No.2 (Winter,1975), pp.229-231.
——, "What is Anti-Art?" The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol.33, No. 4 (Summer,1975), pp.419-421.
——, "Why Not the Both?," The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol.45, No.3 (Spring,1987), p.297.
——, "Beardsley, Sibley and Critical Principles," The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol.46, No.2 (Winter,1987), pp.229-237.
——, "Physical Distance:In a Fog at Sea," British Journal of Aesthetics, Vol.13, No.1,1973.
——, "An Artistic Misunderstanding," The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol.51, No.1 (Winter,1993), pp.69-71.
——, "Evaluating Art," British Journal of Aesthetics, Vol.25, No.1,1985.
——, "Art:Function or Procedure:Nature or Culture?," The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol.55, No.1 (winter,1997), pp.19-28.
——, "A Reply to Noel Carroll," The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 55, No.3 (Summer,1997), pp.311-312.
——, "Wollheim's Dilemma," British Journal of Aesthetics, Vol.32, April 1998.
——, Art and Value:Themes in the Philosophy of Art, New York:Blackwell,2001.
——, Art and Aesthetic:An Institutional Analysis, Ithaca and London:Cornell University Press,1974.
——, Introduction to Aesthetics:An Analytic Approach, Oxford:Oxford University Press,1997.
——, The Art Circle:A Theory of Art, Chicago Spectrum Press,1997.
Diffey, T. J., The Republic of Art, British Journal of Aesthetics, Vol.9, No.2,1969.
——, "On Defining Art," British Journal of Aesthetics, Vol.19, No.1,1979.
DiMaggio, Paul, "Classification in Art," American Sociological Review, Vol.52, No.4,1987.
——, "The Sociology of Art Comes of Age," Contemporary Sociology, Vol.12, No.3,1983.
Eldridge, Richard, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Art, New York:Cambridge University Press,2003.
Eler, Alexander, "Dickie's Institutional Theory and the 'Openness' of the Concept of Art," Postgraduate Journal of Aesthetics, Vol.3, No.3,2006, pp.110-117.
Fletcher, James J., "Artificiality Broadly and Narrowly Speaking," Southern Journal of Philosophy, Vol.20, No.1,1982.
Forsey, Jane, "Philosophical Disenfranchisement in Danto's "The End of Art'," The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol.59, No.4,2001.
Griffin, Charles T. and Griffin, Brenda S., "Art as Collective Action," American Sociological Review, Vol.41, No.1,1976.
Groarke, Louis, "An Intentional Definition of Art:Christening Theories Versus Petit Essentialism," Journal of Value Inquiry, March 2001, vol.35.
Hagberg, Garry L., "The institutional Theory of Art:Theory and Antitheory." A Companion to Art Theory, Paul Smith, Carolyn Wilde eds., Blackwell,2002.
Harris, Jonathan, The New Art History:A Critical Introduction, London: Routledge,2001.
Harrington, Austin, Art and Social Theory, Cambridge:Polity Press,2004.
Hauser, Arnold, Social History of Art, New York:Taylor& Francis Routledge, 1999.
Horowitz, Gregg, and Huhn, Tom eds., The Wake of Art:Criticism, Philosophy and the Ends of Taste:Essays by Arthur C. Danto, Amsterdam:The Gordon and Breach Publishing Group,1998.
Hyman, Lawrence W., "A Defense of Aesthetic Experience:In Reply to George Dickie," British Journal of Aesthetics, Vol.26, No.1,1986.
Iseminger, Gary, "Aestheticism and Institutional Turn," Journal of Aesthetic Education, Vol.29, No.2,1995, pp.14-18.
Jones, Amelia, A Companion to Contemporary Art Since 1945, Oxford:Blackwell Publishing,2006.
Kapsis, Robert E., "Reputation Building and the Film Art World:the case of Alfred Hitchcock," Sociological Quarterly, Vol.30, Nol.1989.
Kelly, Michael, "Essentialism and Historicism in Danto's Philosophy of Art," History and Theory, Vol.37, No.4,1998.
Kivy, Peter, The Blackwell Guide to Aesthetics, Malden:Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004.
Kripke, Saul A., Naming and Necessity, Cambridge:Harvard University Press, 1972.
Kraut, Robert, Artworld Metaphysics, Oxford:Oxford University Press,2007.
Kuhn, Thomas S., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago:The University of Chicago Press,1962.
Lamarque, Peter, "The British Journal of Aesthetics:Forty Years on," British Journal of Aesthetics, Vol.40, No.1, Jan.2000.
Leddy, Thomas, "Practical George and Aesthete Jerome Meet the Aesthetic Object," Southern Journal of Philosophy, Vol.28, No.1,1990.
Levinson, Jerrold, "Defining Art Historically," British Journal of Aesthetics, Vol. 19, No.3,1979.
——, "Refining Art Historically," The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Winter 1989, Vol.47.1.
Lewis, David, Convention:A Philosophical Study, Maiden:Blackwell,2002.
Lord, Catherine, "Convention and Dickie's Institutional Theory of Art," British Journal of Aesthetics, Vol.20, No.4,1980.
——, "Indexicality, Not Circularity:Dickie's New Definition of Art," The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol.45, No.3,1987, pp.229-232.
Lorand, Ruth, Aesthetic Order:A Philosophy of Order, Beauty and Art, New York: Routledge,2000.
Maanen, Hans van, How to Study Artworlds:On the Societal Functioning of Social Values, Amsterdam:Amsterdam University Press,2009.
Mattick, Paul, Art in its Time:Theories and Practices of Modern Aesthetics, London:Routledge,2003.
Matravers, Derek, "The Institutional Theory:A Protean Creature," British Journal of Aesthetics, Vol.0, No.2, April 2000.
——, "Institutional Definitions and Reasons," British Journal of Aesthetics, Vol. 47, No.3, July 2007.
McGregor, Robert, "Dickie's Institutionalized Aesthetic," British Journal of Aesthetics, Vol.17, No.1,1977.
Mortensen, Preben, Art in the Social Order:The Making of the Modern Conception of Art, New York:State University of New York Press,1997.
Plummer, Ken and Becker, Howard, "Continuity and Change in Howard S. Becker's Work:An Interview with Howard S. Becker," Sociological Perspectives, Vol. 46, No.1,2003.
Robertson, Jean, Themes of Contemporary Art:Visual Art after 1980, New York: Oxford University Press,2009.
Rollins, Mark ed., Danto and His Critics, Oxford:John Wiley and Sons Inc,2012.
Ryckman, Thomas C., "Dickie on Artifactuality," The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol.47, No.2,1989, pp.175-177.
Sankowski, Edward, "Free Actions, Social Institutions, and the Definition of 'Art'", Philosophical Studies, Vol.37, No.1,1980.
Seel, Martin, "Two Comments on Arthur C. Danto's after the End of Art," History and Theory, Vol.37, No.4,1998.
Simonton, Dean Keith, Origins of Genius, Oxford:Oxford University Press,1999.
Smith, Paul and Wilde, Carolyn eds., A Companion to Art Theory, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd,2002.
Skidelsky, Edward, "But Is It Art? A New Look at the Institutional Theory of Art," Philosophy 82,2007, pp.259-273.
Stecker, Robert, "The End of an Institutional Definition of Art," British Journal of Aesthetics, Vol.26, No.2,1986.
Stock, Kathleen, New Waves in Aesthetics, New York:Pal grave Macmillan,2008.
Swartz, David, Culture and Power:The Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu. University of Chicago Press,1997.
Tanner, Jeremy, ed., The Sociology of Art:A Reader, Routledge,2003.
Ward, Frazer, "The Haunted Museum:Institutional Critique and Publicity," October, Vol.73,1995.
Wieand, Jefferey, "Duchamp and the Artworld," Critical Inquiry, Vol.8, No.1, 1981.
Williams, Raymond, The Sociology of Culture, The University of Chicago Press, 1995.
Wolcott, Anne, "Is What You See What You Get? A Postmodern Approach to Understanding Works of Art," Studies in Art Education, Vol.37, No.2,1996.
Yanal, Robert Y, Institutions of Art:Reconsiderations of George Dickie's Philosophy, Penn State Press,2004.