The central bulk of Nelson Goodman's influential Languages of Art is devoted to problem of identity of work of art.(l] In chapter three Goodman first expounds his now famous distinction between autographic and allographic art. Works of autographic arts (e.g., painting^ sculpture, printmaking) are works whose exact duplication cannot guarantee authenticity, since their authenticity depends on having requisite history of production (e.g., being painted by requisite artist or printed from requisite plate). In such arts, the distinction between original and forgery of it is significant.[2] In contrast, identity and authenticity of works of allographic arts (e.g., music, literature, and drama) are defined not historically but notationally. The work's essential or constitutive properties are fully determined by a notation (score, text, or script), and authentic instances of work can be produced at will through duplication of notation or what it prescribes. After a detailed study of syntactic and semantic requirements for notation (in chapter four), Goodman proceeds (in penultimate chapter five) to provide notational definitions of identity of works of allographic art and to explain why work-identity in autographic arts must be differently defined. Altogether, this amounts to probably most rigorous and comprehensive theory of work of art's identity that has ever been presented, and not surprisingly it has been widely studied and discussed. However, Goodman's theory of work-identity has been severely criticized.[3] The sharp distinction between autographic and allographic art has sometimes been questioned, but probably most criticism has been directed at his rigidly precise notational definitions of identity of allographic works, definitions which