Dickins, Thomas E. (2009) ‘Changes in Art: Market Forces or Evolution’, Empirical Studies of the Arts, 27(2), pp. 159-165.
Use this permanent URL when citing or linking to this resource in ROAR.
Colin Martindale has presented the case for the end of art based on an evolutionary argument that invokes the need for representation and novelty as the key selection pressures. Art is hopelessly doomed to use up novelty and so render itself extinct. In this response I take issue with Martindale’s use of evolutionary theory and then with his notion of novelty. I conclude that a better conceptual framework might be that of the market and of game theory. To begin with, however, I briefly outline evolutionary theory in order to lay the groundwork for subsequent arguments.
|Divisions:||Schools > Psychology, School of|
|Additional Information:||Citation: Dickins, T.E (2009) ‘Changes in Art: Market Forces or Evolution’ Empirical Studies of the Arts 27 (2) 159-165.|
|Date Deposited:||09 Feb 2010 11:54|
|Creators:||Dickins, Thomas E.|
|Last Modified:||27 Sep 2012 12:00|
|Depositing User:||Stephen Grace|