Changes in art: market forces or evolution? A response to Colin Martindale
Dickins, Thomas E. (2009) Changes in art: market forces or evolution? A response to Colin Martindale. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 27 (2). pp. 159-165. ISSN 0276-2374
PDF (Full text)
- Final accepted version (with author's formatting)
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives.
Download (125kB) | Preview
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.
|Additional Information:||Citation: Dickins, T.E (2009) Changes in Art: Market Forces or Evolution? Empirical Studies of the Arts 27 (2) 159-165.|
|Research Areas:||A. > School of Science and Technology > Psychology
A. > School of Science and Technology > Psychology > Behavioural Biology group
|Depositing User:||Aran Lewis|
|Date Deposited:||06 Nov 2012 09:33|
|Last Modified:||13 Oct 2016 14:25|
Actions (login required)