Our goal in this paper is to articulate a novel account of the ordinary concept ART. At the core of our account is the idea that a puzzle surrounding our thought and talk about art is best understood as just one instance of a far broader phenomenon. In particular, we claim that one can make progress on this puzzle by drawing on research from cognitive science on dual character concepts. Thus, we suggest that the very same sort of phenomenon that is associated with ART can also be found in a broad class of other dual character concepts, including SCIENTIST, CHRISTIAN, GANGSTER, and many others. Instead of focusing narrowly on the case of ART, we try to offer a more general account of these concepts and the puzzles to which they give rise. Then, drawing on the general theory, we introduce a series of hypotheses about art concepts, and put those hypotheses to the test in three experimental studies. Here is a fictional version of a conversation one might overhear in the Los Angeles County Museum of Art while standing in front of Jeff Koons’s Michael Jackson and Bubbles (1988): Alfie: This is not art. I know many people think it is art, but when you think about what art really is, you will realize that it is not art at all. Betty: Of course this is art. It is in the Los Angeles County Museum of Art! Alfie: I know. But it’s impersonal factory-produced rubbish.1 We think it is pretty obvious that this sort of conversation (or something very close to it) is commonplace. Contemporary art, especially the avant-garde, frequently generates public resistance. This resistance often leads to conversations like that between Alfie and Betty. These conversations, and their persistence, call for explanation. * All authors participated in design of the studies and in manuscript preparation and revision. Shen-yi Liao led the data collection. Shen-yi Liao and Joshua Knobe performed the data analyses. We thank audiences at the Buffalo Experimental Philosophy Conference, Conference of the International Association of Empirical Aesthetics, London Aesthetics Forum, Swiss Center for Affective Science, University of Georgia, University of Reading, and University of Vienna for their feedback. In addition, we thank Dominic McIver Lopes and many anonymous referees for their comments. This research was supported by a European Community FP7 Marie Curie International Incoming Fellowship, grant PIIF-GA-2012-328977. 1 As art critic Jed Perl (2014) writes, ‘Everything Koons produces has a factory-produced impersonality’.

中文翻译：

---

双重角色艺术概念

我们在本文中的目标是阐明对普通概念 ART 的新颖描述。我们帐户的核心是这样一种想法，即围绕我们的思想和谈论艺术的难题最好被理解为更广泛现象的一个实例。特别是，我们声称可以通过利用认知科学对双重字符概念的研究在这个难题上取得进展。因此，我们认为与艺术相关的同一类现象也可以在广泛的其他双重角色概念中找到，包括科学家、基督徒、黑帮等等。我们不是狭隘地关注 ART 的案例，而是尝试对这些概念和它们引起的谜题提供更一般的说明。然后，借鉴一般理论，我们介绍了一系列关于艺术概念的假设，并在三项实验研究中检验这些假设。这是一个虚构版本的对话，人们可能会在洛杉矶县艺术博物馆中听到杰夫昆斯的《迈克尔杰克逊与泡泡》（1988）前的对话： 阿尔菲：这不是艺术。我知道很多人认为它是艺术，但当你思考艺术究竟是什么时，你会发现它根本不是艺术。贝蒂：这当然是艺术。它在洛杉矶县艺术博物馆！阿尔菲：我知道。但它是工厂生产的非个人垃圾。1 我们认为这种对话（或与之非常接近的东西）很常见。当代艺术，尤其是前卫艺术，经常引起公众的抵制。这种抵抗常常导致阿尔菲和贝蒂之间的对话。这些对话，以及他们的坚持，要求解释。* 所有作者都参与了研究的设计以及手稿的准备和修改。廖申义领导数据收集工作。Shen-yi Liao 和 Joshua Knobe 进行了数据分析。我们感谢布法罗实验哲学会议、国际经验美学协会会议、伦敦美学论坛、瑞士情感科学中心、佐治亚大学、雷丁大学和维也纳大学的观众的反馈。此外，我们感谢 Dominic McIver Lopes 和许多匿名裁判的评论。这项研究得到了欧洲共同体 FP7 玛丽居里国际传入奖学金的支持，授予 PIIF-GA-2012-328977。1 正如艺术评论家 Jed Perl (2014) 所写，“昆斯生产的一切都具有工厂生产的非个性”。* 所有作者都参与了研究的设计以及手稿的准备和修改。廖申义领导数据收集工作。Shen-yi Liao 和 Joshua Knobe 进行了数据分析。我们感谢布法罗实验哲学会议、国际经验美学协会会议、伦敦美学论坛、瑞士情感科学中心、佐治亚大学、雷丁大学和维也纳大学的观众的反馈。此外，我们感谢 Dominic McIver Lopes 和许多匿名裁判的评论。这项研究得到了欧洲共同体 FP7 玛丽居里国际传入奖学金的支持，授予 PIIF-GA-2012-328977。1 正如艺术评论家 Jed Perl (2014) 所写，“昆斯生产的一切都具有工厂生产的非个性”。* 所有作者都参与了研究的设计以及手稿的准备和修改。廖申义领导数据收集工作。Shen-yi Liao 和 Joshua Knobe 进行了数据分析。我们感谢布法罗实验哲学会议、国际经验美学协会会议、伦敦美学论坛、瑞士情感科学中心、佐治亚大学、雷丁大学和维也纳大学的观众的反馈。此外，我们感谢 Dominic McIver Lopes 和许多匿名裁判的评论。这项研究得到了欧洲共同体 FP7 玛丽居里国际传入奖学金的支持，授予 PIIF-GA-2012-328977。1 正如艺术评论家 Jed Perl (2014) 所写，“昆斯生产的一切都具有工厂生产的非个性”。