Abstract

Unfit to Print: Contra Mag Uidhir on the Ontology of Photographic Artworks

Highlights

  • ALEXEY ALIYEVAccording to the orthodox view, photographic artworks are abstract objects

  • What sort of things are photographic artworks?1 Are they abstracta, like numbers, properties, and sets? Concreta, like tables, people, and mental representations? Or entities of some other kind? According to the view accepted by an overwhelming majority of theorists, including Gregory Currie, Jerrold Levinson, Guy Rohrbaugh, Amie Thomasson, Richard Wollheim, and Nicholas Wolterstorff, photographic artworks are abstracta

  • The objection being discussed is unavailable to a proponent of this argument. Another potential objection is to reject the premise that photographic titles refer to particular photographic artworks

Read more

Summary

ALEXEY ALIYEV

According to the orthodox view, photographic artworks are abstract objects. This view, has recently been challenged by Christy Mag Uidhir. In his article ‘Photographic Art: An Ontology Fit to Print’, he argues in favour of a nominalist construal of photographic artworks. My goal is to show that Mag Uidhir’s argument is unpersuasive

INTRODUCTION
CONCLUSION
Full Text
Published version (Free)

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 call