How to Understand the Completion of Art
Author(s) -
GRAFTONCARDWELL PATRICK
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
the journal of aesthetics and art criticism
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.553
H-Index - 32
eISSN - 1540-6245
pISSN - 0021-8529
DOI - 10.1111/jaac.12715
Subject(s) - mistake , extant taxon , ask price , epistemology , psychology , philosophy , political science , law , economics , economy , biology , evolutionary biology
There are a number of recent discussions on the question of when an artwork is complete. While it has been observed that a work might be complete in one way and not in another, the impact of this observation has been minimal. Discussion has been continued as if there is only one real sense of completion that matters. I argue that this is a mistake. Even if there were only one (or one most important) kind of completion, extant theories of completion would be bad candidates for that one kind. The best explanation of the failure of extant theories is that there are many kinds of completion, many corresponding senses of “completion,” and no kind of artwork completion is objectively more important than any other. We have a good reason to think that this is the case given the disparate interests we have when we ask completion questions. Once we have realized that those concerns track properties that are often unrelated, the question for theorists to answer becomes, “In how many ways can an artwork be complete?”
Accelerating Research
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom
Address
John Eccles HouseRobert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom