Levinson's Definition Of Art Lackries: Article Analysis

Art Forgeries When one enters into an art museum, one would expect all of the pieces of art to be that of the original. However, when an art lover does not know the difference between an original from a forgery, then they may have been fooled by both the museum and by the forger. No one can really look at a painting and distinctly know whether it is a forged piece of work or an original piece of work. Art forgeries may seem like an artist copying a well-known artists work, but it depends on how one looks at a particular piece of art. There are multiple reasons as to why art forgeries can be seen as something positive in the artistic world.
Crispin Sartwell discusses about Jerrold Levinson’s definition of art from Levinson’s article, “Refining Art Historically,” in the Journal of Aesthetics & Art Criticism of 1990. To Levinson, art is something that is made to be intended to be “regarded” as a work of art (Sartwell). Luise Morton and Thomas Foster discuss Nelson Goodman’s definition of art from Languages of Art in Journal of Aesthetics & Art Criticism of 1991. Goodman says that it is about how one looks at an original and a forged art depends on the way we look at it (Morton and Foster). Both Levinson and Goodman make good points because they are both saying that all depends on the person’s perspective. Not everyone sees the same piece of
However, if one stops to think about the fact that art forgeries are actually artists bringing masterpieces back, one would not think it was a crime. These artists are creative enough to be able to recreate an artwork and give art lovers the feeling of having a masterpiece in their home or be able to look at it in a museum. Art forgeries are a lucrative past time for those who love art and want to be able to see “their art” in a museum. It is a win-win situation for both the artist and the art