title: Causal history, actual and apparent.
abstract: Attention is drawn to the distinction between the actual (or factual) and the apparent (or ostensible) causal history of a work of art, and how the authors' recommendation "to assume the design stance" in the name of understanding works of art blurs that distinction, thus inadvertently reinforcing the hoary idea, against which the authors otherwise rightly battle, that what one needs to properly appreciate an artwork can be found in even suitably framed observation of the work alone.
authors.affiliation: Department of Philosophy, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA. august@umd.edu
authors.forename: Jerrold
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Levinson
mesh_terms: D001154:Art / Q000266:history*; D003071:Cognition; D004954:Esthetics / Q000266:history* / Q000523:psychology*; D006801:Humans; D011582:Psychological Theory; D011584:Psychology / Q000379:methods*