Aesthetic Testimony and the Test of Time

Abstract

claims. 2 In §2 I say a little more about my preferred understanding of these doctrines.The main upshot of this section will be a view according to which both TT and NT should be interpreted in broadly epistemic terms.I then argue that there is a previously underexplored conflict between these two theses, such that one cannot reasonably accept them both.In §3 I survey, and ultimately reject, some possible attempts to reconcile the two doctrines.In §4 and §5 I argue that there are a number of excellent reasons to accept TT and, therefore, reasons to reject NT. The Two Claims The Test of TimeTT finds support from a number of Hume's most notable contemporaries, including Samuel Johnson (1765) ,who asserts that for 'works of which the excellence is not absolute and definitive […] no other test can be applied than length of duration and continuance of esteem'.And interest in TT is not peculiar to the eighteenth century.Indeed, as Anthony Savile (1982: 1) notes:As long as the arts have attracted interpretation and criticism it has been common […] practice to appeal to the judgement of time in distinguishing accurate from inaccurate estimates […] and in setting the individual artist in his rightful place in the pantheon of the great.3 The importance of TT has also been stressed by a number of contemporary philosophers.Anita Silvers (1991: 211), for example, maintains that no 'artwork attains canonical status totally independently of its ability to inspire enduring aesthetic admiration ' and Jerrold Levinson (2002: 233) claims that since masterpieces 'singularly stand the test of time […] it is thus a reasonable supposition that such works have a high artistic value'.4 2 For exegetical discussion see, e.g., Friday (1998) and Crowther (2010).3 For discussion of the history of such views see Savile (1982: 33-40).4 See also Levinson (2010: 225-7) and Sibley (1968: 50-51).

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 19 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.