This is an invited response to a critical discussion by John Zeimbekis of an earlier paper which I coauthored with Jason D'Cruz. Jason and I provide a characterization of the distinction between autographic and allographic works which captures the value of Goodman's distinction. In this paper we elaborate on that a bit while explicitly eschewing some of Goodman's other commitments.
The primary concern of our 2014 paper was not notation but the autographic/allographic distinction, not representations as such but works of art. As we see it, Zeimbekis's considerations do not ultimately undermine the position we advanced in 2014-- but they do challenge an element of Goodman's own theory of notation that derives from his requirement of recoverability. That requirement can be abandoned without losing the explanatory power of the autographic/allographic distinction as we have refined it.
@ARTICLE(Magnus+DCruz2015,
AUTHOR = {P.D. Magnus and Jason {D'C}ruz},
TITLE = {Preserving the autographic/allographic distinction},
JOURNAL = {Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism},
VOLUME = {73},
NUMBER = {4},
MONTH = {Fall},
YEAR = {2015},
PAGES = {453--457}
)
The first on-line draft of this paper was posted 16apr2015.