Appearance and History: the Autographic/Allographic Distinction Revisited

British Journal of Aesthetics 58 (1):71-87 (2018)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
Nelson Goodman notoriously distinguished between autographic works, whose instances should be identified by taking history of production into account, and allographic works, whose instances can be identified independently of history of production. Scholars such as Jerrold Levinson, Flint Schier, and Gregory Currie have criticized Goodman’s autographic/allographic distinction arguing that all works are such that their instances should be identified by taking history of production into account. I will address this objection by exploiting David Davies’ distinction between e-instances and p-instances of a work, thereby restating the autographic/allographic distinction. Then, I will show that this way of restating this distinction leads us to effective accounts of relevant related phenomena such as forgery, plagiarism, and digital technologies. Finally, I will show the theoretical advantages of my account of the autographic/allographic distinction in comparison with an alternative account recently proposed by Jason D’Cruz and P.D. Magnus.
Keywords
No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories
(categorize this paper)
PhilPapers/Archive ID
TERAAH
Revision history
Archival date: 2019-01-06
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
Are Digital Images Allographic?Jason D'cruz & P. D. Magnus - 2014 - Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 72 (4):417-427.

View all 6 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Added to PP index
2017-12-23

Total views
46 ( #37,340 of 44,295 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
14 ( #36,895 of 44,295 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.