On Fraudulence in Art
Keywords:Fraudulence, Contemporary Art, Stanley Cavell
AbstractContemporary art is frequently accused to be fraudulent. Usually explained away as an epiphenomenon, the experience of fraudulence is rarely investigated per se. This paper closely examines Stanley Cavell’s stance on the issue, comparing it with the positions implied in Arthur Danto’s, Nelson Goodman’s and Richard Wollheim’s aesthetics. Reflections on examples of fraudulent art in the history of visual art lead to partly dismiss Cavell’s position in his own term: fraudulent art can be part of the media resources which might allow an artist to “keep faith with tradition.” The impression of fraudulence is then dependent on the ontology of contemporary artworks.
LicenseAuthors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication, with the work five (5) years after publication licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- After five years from first publication, Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.