In the following, Michael is making a general statement about how we "judge" "artworks". I presume Michael would say works of music and dance are "artworks", but it isn't clear how any of this applies to such works. That is, much music has no "referent", and thus "fidelity to the referent" plays no part in our "judging". Such music has no such "truth conditions". (I'll pass over here Michael's claim that we "judge" an "artwork" that is not "a documentation or transcription of the referent" by "how well it stimulates our awareness of its adroitness in making, of the maker's skill and insight, and that awareness satisfies our perceptions of fitness, relationship, and other sensory delights.")
" I believe the crucial, the necessary and sufficient, property of an "artwork" is the truth-conditions to which it is subjected. (And thus, the 'definition' of "art" is a functional one.) If the object is offered to us--and received by us--as a documentation or transcription of the referent, then we judge the work by its fidelity to the referent and (typically) derive our emotion reaction from the depicted subject. But if the subject is offered to us--and received by us--as a provisional portrayal, as a simulation or recreation or contemplation of the subject, then we judge the work, not by its faithfulness in representing the subject, but by how well it stimulates our awareness of its adroitness in making, of the maker's skill and insight, and that awareness satisfies our perceptions of fitness, relationship, and other sensory delights." ************** You're invited to Hollywood's biggest party: Get Oscars updates, red carpet pics and more at Moviefone. (http://movies.aol.com/oscars-academy-awards?ncid=emlcntusmovi00000001)
