Abstract
Contemporary art is frequently accused to be fraudulent. Usually explained away as an epiphenomenon, the experience of fraudulence is rarely investigated per se. This paper closely examines Stanley Cavell’s stance on the issue, comparing it with the positions implied in Arthur Danto’s, Nelson Goodman’s and Richard Wollheim’s aesthetics. Reflections on examples of fraudulent art in the history of visual art lead to partly dismiss Cavell’s position in his own term: fraudulent art can be part of the media resources which might allow an artist to “keep faith with tradition.” The impression of fraudulence is then dependent on the ontology of contemporary artworks.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
