Analysis Of Dano's 'The Artworld' By Arthur Danto

In today’s society, we are constantly being bombarded with visual art forms. Whether they be classical paintings from the Renaissance, a towering and modern skyscraper, or even a cheesy 90’s R&B music video, they all have one thing in common. According to Carolyn Dean’s definition, these would all fall under the category of “art by intention.” In her essay “The Trouble with (The Term) Art” she advocates a distinction between art by intention and what she deems “art by appropriation.” The difference is that one work was created with the intention of being consumed for visual pleasure, while the other was not. However having been educated in the Western school of thought, many art historians cannot help but project their rigid definition of art onto civilizations that may have

In a world that has become immune to accepting all types of art, Marya Mannes believes we have lost our standards and ability to identify something as “good” or “bad”. In her essay, “How Do You Know It’s Good”, she discusses society’s tendency to accept everything out of fear of wrongly labelling something as being good or bad. She touches on various criteria to judge art, such as the artist’s purpose, skill and craftsmanship, originality, timelessness, as well as unity within a piece rather than chaos. She says that an individual must decide if something is good “on the basis of instinct, experience, and association” (Mannes). I believe that by using standards and the process of association, we will be able to judge what makes an art piece good in comparison to others. However, Mannes forces me to consider the difference between what may be appealing versus what is actually good, and when deciding which art we should accept, which is truly more important. I believe that “good” and “bad” are two ends of a large, subjective spectrum of grey area. It is possible for a piece of art to be good in some areas and bad in others, and if something does not live up to all of our standards, it does not necessarily mean it should be dismissed. Thus, I believe my personal standards for judging art are based on which my standards are largely based on the personal reaction evoked from a piece of art. Though I agree with Mannes’ standards to an extent, I believe that certain standards, such as evoking a personal response, can be more telling of if a piece of art is good as opposed to its timelessness, or the level of experience of an artist in his/her craft.

In the contemplation of art, or rather the conceptually intangible definition it currently possess, it is imperative to be mindful that “art” has been utilized as a promotional device, ceremonial item, aesthetically purposed article or perhaps none of these or all. It is because of this vague term that Carolyn Dean, in her text, “The Trouble with (The Term) Art”, makes a case for the consequences of applying the term “art” in societies that lacked such a notion which also accounts for the Western-centric lens the field intrinsically utilizes when viewing non-Western art. The claim is deftly supported by the utilization of expert accounts in the subject, alternative perspectives for what is considered the current norm, and self-examining questions,

In John Berger’s essay “Ways of Seeing,” he shares his view on how he feels art is seen. Mr. Berger explores how the views of people are original and how art is seen very differently. By comparing certain photographs, he goes on to let his Audience, which is represented as the academic, witness for themselves how art may come across as something specific and it can mean something completely different depending on who is studying the art. The author goes into details of why images were first used, how we used to analyze art vs how we do today, and the rarity of arts. He is able to effectively pass on his message by using the strategies of Rhetoric, which include Logos, Pathos, and Ethos.

Controversial pieces of art are nothing new; artists express their opinions and beliefs in their work, and those who see the artist’s views as problematic speak out against it. Art encourages debate, and debates can be angry and emotion-driven. But when a piece of art is created that is almost universality looked upon as having corrupt morals, the debate tends to switch “I disagree with what this art portrays” to, “this work of art should not be allowed in society, regardless of its quality.”

Philosopher Arthur Danto, author of “The Artworld,” an artistic criticism, states that “to see something as art requires something that the eye cannot descry—an atmosphere of artistic theory, a knowledge of the history of art: an artworld” (201). Artistic theory, according to Danto, requires the presence of a subject, style, rhetorical ellipses, and that of historical context. Danto is capable of developing this view on art with the aid of an imaginary character, Testadura. Testadura, however, makes mistakes, as well as corrections, about the objects before him.

With the advent of Modernism in the early twentieth century, many artists and critics began making theoretical pronouncements about their works and ideas. Using three different artists and their writings from the Theories of Modern Art book by Herschel B. Chipp. I will study the artist’s works and ideas in relation to the role of art in their society, the role of traditional practices in art, their view on nature versus reality, and their view on the relationship between art and truth. The three artists and works will be the Fauvist Henri Matisse’s “Notes of a Painter,” the German Expressionist Franz Marc’s “How Does a Horse See the World?” as well as “Aphorism,” and lastly the Dadaist Jean Arp’s, “Abstract Art, Concrete Art.”

The analysis of art and visual culture has many analysts divided into different camps. From formalists to Marxists, there are as many different forms of art analysis as there are art movements. Different forms of analysis can divide theorists, driving them further apart. But different analyses can actually collaborate to create a stronger analysis. In Marina Abramovic’s piece Dragon Heads, different forms of analysis open the work up to deeper meaning. New meanings and interpretations are formed through the process of various different forms of analysis.

First, Duchamp suggests that an artist's intentions cannot transcend past the artist. This loss of intention is called 'art coefficient' (Duchamp) “If we give the attributes of a medium to the artist, we must then deny him the state of consciousness on the esthetic plane about what he is doing or why he is doing it.” (Duchamp) An artist should not expect observer to have the same viewpoint. An onlooker views art

Through the touchstone, the way art is viewed through the white box theory is challenged.

Arthur C. Danto in “The Artworld” provides us with the argument that, “To see something as art requires something that the eye cannot descry-an atmosphere of artistic theory, a knowledge of the history of art: an artworld.” Danto shows us the importance of the artworld in order to know that a work of art is more than just what we can plainly see. Danto provides two theories he calls the “IT” (Imitation theory) and the “RT” (Reality theory). With these two theories, Danto explains how we can define art and why “The Artworld” is needed to help understand art, because after all, “these days one might not be aware he was on artistic terrain without an artistic theory to tell him so.”

“What I hear is valueless; only what I see is living, and when I close my eyes my vision is even more powerful.” This quote from the metaphysical artist, Giorgio de Chirico, can be relayed to his audience visually through his artwork. During his years as a novice artist, Chirico gained inspiration from the surreal scenarios in the works by European Symbolist artists. Along with these Symbolist artists, Chirico’s pieces of art were influenced by the philosophy of Arthur Schopenhauer and Friedrich Nietzche. Both philosophers saw art as a lens for life and a way of responding to the suffering that describes the distinctive nature of humanity. The philosophy of these men encouraged Chirico to uncover the true reality beneath everyday objects through

As literary critics, Plato and Aristotle disagree profoundly about the value of art in human society. Plato attempts to strip artists of the power and prominence they enjoy in his society, while Aristotle tries to develop a method of inquiry to determine the merits of an individual work of art. It is interesting to note that these two disparate notions of art are based upon the same fundamental assumption: that art is a form of mimesis, imitation. Both philosophers are concerned with the artist's ability to have significant impact on others. It is the imitative function of art which promotes disdain in Plato and curiosity in Aristotle. Examining the reality that art

Art is all around us. There are many different forms of art. It can be something created, captured, or it can be already existent. Not a single person is to say what makes something art because there is a different definition for everyone. However, there are a couple factors that come into mind whenever someone decides to declare something as art. In this essay I will be comparing and contrasting four different pieces of art. I will be discussing each art piece’s form, time period of creation, intention or purpose, and value. These four pieces of art are Michelangelo’s Pieta, Fountain by Marcel Duchamp, Mark Rothko’s No.61, and the “Oyster Dress” by Alexander McQueen. These works of art come in all different shapes and sizes but they are valued

about the world around us, even just for a moment. This boldly claims a kind of autonomy for art, but one that is distinct from Theodor W. Adorno’s conception and more in-line with the affirmative notions the aesthetic impulse. As such, the kind of aesthetics that I am eluded to here is not just a state of contemplation. It is much more. As Cramerotti describes in his aforementioned essay, ‘it is rather the capacity of an art form to put our sensibility in motion, and convert what we feel about nature and the human race into a concrete (visual or bodily) experience’. It is useful to introduce Deleuze’s categories of the ‘actual’ and the ‘virtual’ and put them into motion. In his 1968 text ‘Difference and Repetition’, Deleuze explains that ‘the virtual is not opposed to the real; it possesses a full reality by itself. The process it undergoes is actualisation. It would be wrong to see only a verbal despite here: it is a question of existence itself’. Deleuze’s category of the ‘virtual’, the realm of affects and Paterson’s documents of darkness are united in their intangibility and their capacity to move the spectator beyond the familiar. Collectively, these forces harness the ability to transport the viewer to another time and place.