A Doctoral Dissertation On Jerrold Levinson’s Philosophy Of Art

As early as 1947,Melvin Rader argued that most philosophies of art,as well as many contemporary aesthetic theories,could be categorized under the dichotomy of "contextualism"and "isolationism.In this regard,Levinson stands on the former position.Contextualism plays a methodological role in Levinson’s philosophy of art.The central formulation of Levinson’s aesthetic contextualism is that a work of art is a special artifact,the product of human inventions made at a particular time and place,and that it is essentially an object with historical connotations,which,apart from the cultural context in which it was produced,has neither an artistic identity nor a definite identity,let alone aesthetic properties,let alone a clear meaning,and it is in this cultural context that it is completely structured.It is in this cultural context that it is fully structured as a work of art.Thus,the consideration of the question of the definition of art,the inquiry into the question of aesthetic properties,and the elaboration of the meaning of artworks are all answers based on contextualism.It can even be said that Levinson’s theory is supported by the contextual theory as a methodology,both in the consideration of the metaphysical problems of art in general and in the study of the problems related to specific categories of art.Aesthetic contextualism differs from aesthetic formalism,as well as from aesthetic empiricism and aesthetic structuralism.One important difference,as Reade’s concept of dichotomy shows,is that aesthetic contextualism emphasizes relevance rather than thinking about the philosophy of art in isolation from form,experience,or structure.On the question of the definition of art,Levinson’s contextualism calls the correlation a historical one;on the question of the ontology of musical works,Levinson’s historical context of music gives specific uniqueness to the work;on the question of the meaning and interpretation of art works,Levinson emphasizes a hypothetical correlation of intention and attribution of meaning;on the question of aesthetic properties,Levinson proposes a higher-order manifestation in terms of the relationship between aesthetic and non-aesthetic properties On the issue of aesthetic properties,Levinson proposes a higher-order manifestationist view of properties from the relationship between aesthetic and non-aesthetic properties;on the issue of aesthetic value,Levinson argues that objects are valuable because they can provide valuable aesthetic experiences,and that"perceptual communion" and "emotional response" are the two qualifications of aesthetic experience,the former of which involves the object of attention and the object of attention.In his discussion of humor as an aesthetic category,Levinson also adheres to the basic ideas of contextualism.The following is a brief subdivision and summary of the chapters of this thesis.The first chapter discusses Levinson’s "intentional-historical" view of the definition of art.Defining art is one of the central questions in aesthetics and the philosophy of art that has long been a source of concern and ongoing inquiry.At once awe-inspiring and enchanting,this question has drawn countless scholars to ponder it,so much so that it remains an elusive yet inescapable question to this day.It can even be said that many issues of fundamental importance in the philosophy of art have been derived from the question of the definition of art,and in the 1970s the British and American analytic community began to think about the definition of art,abandoning the traditional essentialist definition of art,and no longer adhering to abolitionism in the Weitzian sense,but beginning to move toward a pluralistic descriptive definition.Levinson saw the arbitrariness and parochialism of the prevailing institutionalist definition and tried to propose a more inclusive definition of art,eventually proposing a non-institutionalist "intention-historical" definition.Levinson’s definition places greater emphasis on the importance of contextual and contextual factors,to which the subject of production makes important reference in its intentions;it also reflects the kind of historical relevance required by contextualist thinking,which holds that the way art is made at a particular time is intrinsically related to the way art was made in earlier times,such that subsequent art production necessarily presupposes earlier art production.This definition also emphasizes the importance of the intentional element,which considers the intentional orientation of the subject of production toward what it produces or the activity of production as a necessary condition for artistic identity.This chapter deconstructs and reconstructs Levinson’s view of the definition of art in terms of historical associations,ways of looking at it,the intentional and temporal factors,the question of original art and artistic progress,and the inherent coherence and unity of the concept of art,and reviews and composes the relevant debates.The second chapter discusses Levinson’s "moderate Platonism" view of the ontology of musical works.Musical aesthetics is one of the most important achievements of analytic aesthetics in the past few decades,and ontology is one of the most important core topics of analytic aesthetics,and one of the most important issues in musical aesthetics is the ontology of musical works.The task of the ontology of a musical work is to determine the state of existence of a musical work,its structural type and the conditions of its homogeneity.Analytical aestheticians have provided distinctive answers to this question based on different positions such as musical Platonism,musical Aristotelianism,musical nominalism,and musical conceptualism.Among them,Levinson adheres to a moderate Platonist position.For Levinson,the musical work is neither a purely acoustic structure,nor a purely modal structure,nor a spiritual entity in the sense of Croce,but a composite indicated structure,i.e.,an S/PM Structure-as-indicated-by-X-at-t).In this type of structure,Levinson emphasizes the composer’s compositional,music-historical context that gives the work its specific uniqueness,but also takes into account the manner of performance(or instrumental arrangement).Levinson’s ontological view of the musical work has sparked a protracted academic debate in which the extreme musical Platonist Peter Kivy has engaged in a direct argument with Levinson.Therefore,this chapter also sorts out the debate between the two,exploring the similarities and differences between them on creation versus discovery,on the question of Leibniz’s law and the sameness of the work of art,and on instrumental versus anti-instrumentalism,which are separated in a way that reinforces our understanding of the two views of musical aesthetics.The third chapter discusses Levinson’s "hypothetical intentionalism" view of the interpretation of literary works.Levinson maintains a presumed intent theory of the interpretation of the meaning of literary works.According to Levinson,the meaning of a literary work is the best hypothetical projection of the author’s most likely intentions by the appropriate reader based on the historical context in which the text was produced.Levinson distinguishes between four kinds of meanings in his "view of meaning," drawing on and refining Tolhurst’s view,and between,"literaIy text" and "literary work" in his "ontological view.In the "ontological view",he distinguishes between "literary text" and "literary work"and compares it with Iseminger’s ontological view;in the "intention view",he distinguishes between "category intention" and "semantic intention In the "view of intent",a distinction is made between "category intent" and "semantic intent",refuting Rice’s "neo-Wittgensteinian"view of intent;in the "view of communication",a distinction is made between "everyday communication" and "literary communication".The distinction between "everyday communication" and "literary communication" in the view of "communication" is a revision of Carroll’s actual intention theory.In the confrontation with these different theories,Levinson repeatedly emphasizes the importance of context,assumed relations,meaning of speech,and the quality of the interpreter.Levinson argues with value maximizer Davis and moderate actual intention theorist Steck,clarifying some of the misconceptions about his theory in the academic community.As a pluralist theory of interpretation,it makes the work a vehicle of meaning full of possibilities,creating an open space for interpretation;it also sets a high threshold for critical activity,prompting interpreters to improve their quality.Chapter 4 discusses Levinson’s "higher order of manifestation" view of aesthetic properties.The study of aesthetic properties in Anglo-American analytic aesthetics focuses on the questions of "whether" and "how" aesthetic properties exist,and the answers to the former question can be distinguished from the non-positivist position.The answer to the latter question is mainly concerned with the question of "attachment".Levinson maintains an aesthetic-positivist position on the relevant issue,and in terms of the way in which aesthetic properties exist in relation to the question of attachment,he draws critically on Beardsley’s emergentist view,which differs from definitionalist reductionism.affirmative conditional determinism,and negative determinism,to point out that aesthetic properties are a higher order of manifestation.Levinson argues that most aesthetic terms are descriptive terms;the object described by the aesthetic terms is an aesthetic impression,and the aesthetic impressions obtained by the subject are the perceptual appearance of the aesthetic property as a higher-order mode of emergence;the higher-order aesthetic property and the lower-order structural property are presented as an "asymmetric" dependency relationship.dependence between higher-order aesthetic properties and lower-order structural properties,i.e.,the former depends on the latter,while the latter need not depend on the former.The question of the positivity and dependence of aesthetic properties is debated and discussed between Levinson and Matravers.Chapter 5 discusses Levinson’s account of artistic value.Levinson’s discussion of aesthetic experience begins with an analysis of George Dickey’s theory.In Dickey’s view,there is no particular aesthetic attitude,and the aesthetic experience is entirely a concern with the properties of the object.Levinson’s view differs from Dickey’s in that he believes that the experience of the aesthetic object is not exclusively a careful attention;he places more emphasis on the way in which the viewer’s attention is directed to the object,or rather he focuses more on the function of the object that provokes this attention and the subject’s willingness to accept this influence and direction.Levinson does not share Carroll’s minimalist theory of aesthetic experience,and his view of aesthetic experience is more in line with Iseminger’s.For Levinson,aesthetic experience is a particular kind of attending.In his view,aesthetic experience is an experience in which the object is perceived aesthetically,which is based on aesthetic attention to the object,and which consists of a pleasurable,emotional,and evaluative response of the subject to the perception itself or the content of the perception.The positive reaction of the subject to the perception itself or its content.On the issue of value within the work of art,Levinson maintains an experiential stance in which artistic value and the ability to provide aesthetic experience are very closely related.Chapter 6 discusses Levinson’s "Dispositional Theory of Humor".Humor is an important category in aesthetics,but it has not yet been adequately studied in Chinese literature.The traditional Western theories of humor can be divided into three types:humor incongruity theory,humor superiority theory,and humor mitigation theory.In constructing his own humor theory,Levinson naturally and inevitably launched an in-depth consideration and analysis of the logical patterns and strengths and weaknesses of the traditional-humor theories,and on this basis put forward a humor theory with great analytical characteristics and personal theoretical character-the affective theory of humor interpretation.If Levinson’s view of humor is to grasp the concept of humor and the explanatory mechanism of humor from a general theoretical level,then Levinson’s study of "immoral jokes" is a critical reflection on the relationship between humor and ethics from a specific phenomenon.Finally,the concluding section reflects on Levinson’s philosophical thought on art,which is covered in the six chapters above,and reviews and criticizes these theoretical perspectives in the contextualist perspective.In this section,the author reflects on the shortcomings of this study and outlines the future paths and directions for moving forward in the study of analytic aesthetics.