Abstract
It is uncontroversial that our engagement with artworks is constrained by obligations; most commonly, these consist in obligations to other persons, such as artists, audiences, and owners of artworks. A more controversial claim is that we have genuine obligations to artworks themselves. I defend a qualified version of this claim. However, I argue that such obligations do not derive from the supposed moral rights of artworks – for no such rights exist. Rather, I argue that these obligations are instances of duties of love: obligations that one incurs in virtue of loving some object, be it a person or, in this case, an artwork.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.33134/eeja.157 | Journal eISSN: 2571-0915
Language: English
Page range: 85 - 101
Published on: Mar 1, 2017
Published by: Helsinki University Press
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
© 2017 Anthony Cross, published by Helsinki University Press
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.