Perceptually indistinguishable counterparts are problematic for the artworld, i.e. which is art and which is not? Danto's answer, of course, is twofold. There must exist a theory within which the object can be interpreted as art, and secondly, there must exist an artworld.
1. What is to be made of these art conferring theories? Can anyone hold such a theory, and as such, can anyone confer the status of art to any object as long as they postulate a theory to encompass it? Either contend that my interpretation of this criterion is mistaken or discuss the ramifications of this stipulation.
2. Danto maintains that an artworld must exist for there to be art. Without aestheticians, there can be no art. But an artworld is an atmosphere of artistic theory and a knowledge of the history of art. There must exist artistic theory before there can be art? There must be a history of art before there is any art? Discuss this apparent tension. Is there a way to diffuse this apparent contradiction?
I have responded to both your questions on blog.
ReplyDeleteI responded to your first question on my blog.
ReplyDeleteI responded to your second question on my blog.
ReplyDeleteI responded to your question (number 2) on my blog.
ReplyDelete