| dc.contributor.advisor | 鄭光明 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.advisor | Cheng, Kuang Ming | en_US |
| dc.contributor.author (Authors) | 李佳穎 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author (Authors) | Lee, Chia Ying | en_US |
| dc.creator (作者) | 李佳穎 | zh_TW |
| dc.creator (作者) | Lee, Chia Ying | en_US |
| dc.date (日期) | 2016 | en_US |
| dc.date.accessioned | 11-Jul-2016 17:40:14 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.date.available | 11-Jul-2016 17:40:14 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.date.issued (上傳時間) | 11-Jul-2016 17:40:14 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) | G1021540011 | en_US |
| dc.identifier.uri (URI) | http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/98897 | - |
| dc.description (描述) | 碩士 | zh_TW |
| dc.description (描述) | 國立政治大學 | zh_TW |
| dc.description (描述) | 哲學系 | zh_TW |
| dc.description (描述) | 102154001 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract (摘要) | 寫作這篇論文的動機，是為了探討哲學家George Dickie的藝術制度理論(Dickie’s institutional theory of art)。在第一章中，回顧哲學家Arthur Danto與Morris Weitz的反本質主義(anti-essentialism)，及其如何影響Dickie藝術制度理論的發展，以及研究制度理論的重要性；第二章中，說明Dickie的藝術制度理論內容，並以實際的作品為例子講述藝術制度理論的應用；第三章至第四章中，整理反對藝術制度理論的數個哲學家(Jeffery Wieand, Robert Stecker, Stephen Davis, Richard Wollheim, Noël Carroll)的重要論點，並為Dickie的藝術制度理論辯護。最後第五章為結論，提出「藝術眼鏡」此一觀點用以修正藝術制度理論。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract (摘要) | The purpose of this paper is to investigate George Dickie’s institutional theory of art. I will first discuss Arthur Danto and Morris Weitz’s anti-essentialism, which is the groundwork for Dickie’s institutional theory of art. I will then discuss Dickie’s institutional theory of art, which has been developed as two versions. Both versions have been widely criticized. Stephen Davis argues that art created outside any institution seems possible, although Dickie’s institutional theory of art rules it out. Noël Carroll argues that Dickie’s definition of art is circular, and his institutional theory of art fails to distinguish art institutions from other social institutions. Jeffery Wieand argues that Dickie’s perceptually indistinguishable objects argument fails to show that his institutional theory of art is tenable. In this paper, I will argue that Dickie’s theory can be modified as “the glass theory of art.” If this is true, then these criticisms fail to undermine Dickie’s theory, and Dickie’s theory is still powerful. | en_US |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 第一章 導第一章 導論…………………1第一節 魏茲－開放的概念 3第二節 Stephen Davies論反本質主義及人造物品 6第三節 丹托（Arthur Danto）論「藝術世界」 及「僅僅是現實物品」7第四節 藝術品與「僅僅是現實物品」(Mere Real Things) 10第五節 制度理論的重要性14第二章 Dickie 的藝術制度論………………16第一節 Dickie的制度理論的內容 17第二節 為何Dickie的制度理論有別於其他藝術理論 ─ 不處理鑑賞的內涵？20第三節 對藝術世界體系的嘲諷─ Piero Manzoni 系列作 22第四節 藝術家的意圖 25第三章 反對藝術制度論………………28第一節 Jeffery Wieand論知覺難以分辨之藝術品29第二節 Robert Stecker、Stephen Davis及Richard Wollheim如何反對制度理論31第三節Noël Carroll 如何反對制度理論34第四章 為制度理論辯護………………35第一節 Dickie對兩難問題的答覆36第二節 離群而居的藝術家(isolated artist) 及渾然天成的藝術家(romantic artist) 問題 41第三節 對Wieand的PIOA的回答45第四節「不被知覺到的性質X」 是否是區分藝術品及非藝術品的關鍵 48第五節「病毒X」與PIOA 58第六節 PIOA是個假問題 62第七節 對Davis「藝術品」 被賦予地位需存在權威的回答65第八節對Carroll「制度理論須要加上歷史脈絡」之批 評的回答 71第九節對Carroll「制度理論只是一般常規」之批評的回答 78第五章 結論………………81第一節 章節回顧與補充 82第二節 藝術眼鏡：經驗而非先驗 85第三節 修正Dickie藝術制度理論──藝術眼鏡理論 88第四節 Dickie是否會認為藝術品只是暫時的？90第五節 Dickie為什麼認為時尚不是藝術？94第六節 總結 104參考文獻 ………………105 | zh_TW |
| dc.format.extent | 3378104 bytes | - |
| dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | - |
| dc.source.uri (資料來源) | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G1021540011 | en_US |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | George Dickie | zh_TW |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | 藝術制度理論 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | 反本質主義 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | 分析美學 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | 藝術的定義 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | George Dickie | en_US |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | institutional theory of art | en_US |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | anti-essentialism | en_US |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | analytical aesthetics | en_US |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | the definition of art | en_US |
| dc.title (題名) | Dickie的藝術制度理論 | zh_TW |
| dc.title (題名) | Dickie’s institutional theory of art | en_US |
| dc.type (資料類型) | thesis | en_US |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Carroll, Noël. (1999). Philosophy of Art. London, UK: Routledge.Carroll, Noël. (2001). Identifying Art. In Beyond Aesthetics: Philosophical Essays (pp. 75-100). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Danto, A.C. (1981). Works of Art and Mere Real Things. In The Transfiguration of the Commonplace (pp. 1-32). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Davis, Stephen. (1991). Definitions of Art. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Dickie, George. (1974). What Is Art? An Institutional Analysis. In Art and the Aesthetic: An Institutional Analysis (pp. 426-437). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Dickie, George. (1997). The Art Circle: A Theory of Art. Evanston, IL: Chicago Spectrum Press.Dickie, George. (1998). Wollheim’s Dilemma. British Journal of Aesthetics, 38, 2: 127-135. Dickie, George. (2000). The Institutional Theory of Art. In Theories of Art Today (pp. 93-108). Edited by Noël Carroll. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Edmunds, David & Nigel Warburton, (2010). Philosophy Bites. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Stecker, Robert. (1986). The End of an Institutional Definition of Art. The British Journal of Aesthetics, 26, 2: 124-132.Weitz, Morris. (1956). The Role of Theory in Aesthetics. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 15: 27-35; reprinted in P. Lamarque and S. H. Olsen eds. (2004). Aesthetics and the Philosophy of Art: The Analytic Tradition (pp. 12-18). UK, Oxford: Blackwell.Weitz, Morris. (1977). Art as an Open Concept. In The Opening Mind. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Wieand, Jeffery. (1994). Perceptually Indistinguishable Objects. In Institutions of Art: Reconsiderations of George Dickie’s Philosophy (pp. 39-49), ed. Robert J. Yanal. Pennsylvania State University Press.Wittgenstein, Ludwig. (1953). Philosophical Investigations. Translate by G. E. M. Anscomb. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Wollheim, Richard. (1980). The Institutional Theory of Art. In Art and Its Objects, 2nd edition (pp. 157-166). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Wollheim, Richard. (1987). Painting as an Art. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. | zh_TW |
