Arthur Dantos Arguments and Theories on the Works of Art Based on The Artworld - Essay Example

Aesthetics INTRODUCTION Arthur Danto definition of art may be defined as a work of artas one that has a subject, has style and projects a point of view by means of rhetorical ellipsis that engages the audience participation to fill what is missing and the work in question and the interpretations require an art historical context (Adajian, 2007). The above definition is enhanced and modified by George Dickie who defines art work as artificact which has had conferred on it the status of candidate for appreciation by some person or persons acting in behalf of a certain social institution otherwise referred as the artworld (Dickie, 1995) In todays society speaking of art brings to mind the various genres of art. It’s no longer just about paintings. Its sculpture, music, poetry, theatre and dance but also new disciplines such as video art, audio art, site specific art, happenings, land art, computer generated art and conceptual art (Lemkow,2011) In a midst of such diversity it’s at times easy to understand some works as form of art, while in some instances it raises serious questions as to whether some pieces and performances are forms of art. It’s in such circumstances that the art historians, curators, artists, art critics and even philosophers step in to explain why the works ought or ought not to be regarded as work of art (Lemkow, 2011) The diversity form of art found in museum, galleries, theatres, auditoriums and even in literature has necessitated the need for theoreticians to develop an elaborate arguments and systems on the various form of art and as to what ought to be referred as work of art. Over the years, various theoreticians have come up with various arguments and theories on what should be described as works of art. This discussion however will place its emphasis on Arthur Danto’s arguments and theories on the works of art based on his essay, `The Artworld’ and the validity of his arguments. THE ARTWORLD Danto defines an art world as something that the eye cannot decry an artistic knowledge, and knowledge of the history of the art. He discuses two theories of art that is the imitation theory and the reality theory. The imitation theory depicts an art work where an artist imitates the image of the object he or she is drawing or painting. He criticizes this theory brought forth by philosophers Socrates and Hamlet. Socrates and Hamlet depict art as a mirror reflecting what one can already see and therefore duplicates the appearance of things as we already see them, therefore lacking any cognitive benefit (Danto, 1964) Danto criticizes this argument stating that the argument was defective since if any mirror image was art then any image would be an art which is false. This is especially so with the invention of photography which is not a form of art. He suggests that Socrates philosophy became defective since in his time photography had not been invented hence the inadequacy of his argument. He further adds that with the development of art, the imitation theory would not be in a position to describe the diverse classifications of art. With a lot of development in modern art and especially post impression paintings, that is literacy or artistic style that seeks to capture a feeling rather than achieve accuracy depiction, it would be hard to show why these new works were art. It was therefore necessary that a new theory was developed to make other things to start to count as art (Danto, 1964). The new theory is referred to as the reality theory. This theory explains that art is something that is original and distinguishable. The art can look exactly like the object yet is easily recognizable and distinguished from all others (Danto, 1964 pp. 574) According to the reality theory, the artists are to be understood not unsuccessfully imitating real forms but successfully creating new ones quite as real forms as the older forms of art that had are thought to be imitating. This is especially so because this new theory does not pretend that artworks are imitations just because they are not realistic (Danto, 1964 pp. 573) Danto therefore describes the substance of reality theory as looking at the reality of the object because of the greater interest they represent in the object. In the imitation theory objects were not seen as real objects but rather on the imitation of their representation, for instance, paintings seen like canvases covered in paint. In reality theory however it became more acceptable to look at paintings more on their formal qualities. This theory explains why certain artistic works especially made by artists out of emotions than accuracy is classified as works of art as long as they meet the basic ingredients of a painting as to contain a certain subject, style and being completely being explicit on the message being passed across by the piece of art. IDENTIFICATION OF ART In identifying art, Danto states that there is a limit to identification of art. He categorically states that for a painting Y, the intention should be not to identify Y but to understand why it’s a Y. He rejects certain scholars view that a person with good language skills would be able to identify artwork’s in a gallery full of artworks and non-artwork. He instead states that the modern and contemporary artwork may be indistinguishable from the everyday objects thus the need for artistic theories. In order to understand the condition of artwork, he compares it with science and argues that often new facts can only be explained in science once the previous theory is rejected and a new one is introduced. He argues that something similar occurred in art where the imitation theory was once very useful to explain all artistic facts during certain periods of history but when the work of particular artists didn’t fit this theory, it became no longer useful to explain all instances of art (Danto, 1964 pp.203) To explain the development of art, he gives an example of a bed as a form of artwork, the difference being that the he may have some paint steals as [part of the work or may have a different shape with the normal one. He further explains that such new instances of art may pose a problem to individuals who are incapable of distinguishing artworks and non-artworks. This is especially so when the individual lacks understanding that the particular exhibited object in front of him is to be seen as a work of art rather that the real object sees in front of him or her. To be able to be able to make a distinction he introduces the `this distinction’ which involves acquiring knowledge of the various theories of artwork identification, enabling the individual to identify artistic objects constituted as part of the real object. Further that he states that what an artwork from a similar object is something that the eye cannot decry. Therefore the beginning of the artworld is the use of artistic theories helping us understand the different artworks. One therefore artwork requires something that the eye cannot decry, an artistic knowledge, and knowledge of the history of the art: an artworld. Simply an an art world is the world of artworks that are organized by means of historical succession by which they have been created by the help of theories. CHALLENGES TO THE DANTO’S ARGUMENT Danto argument faces various challenges. First its ambiguous as it talks of various theories one should apply and goes further to state that, a distinction of art should be made of that which the eye cannot decry, which begs the question as to how one can make a distinction as to what the eye cannot depict. In addition he combines various theories as the science, historical as well as the imitation and the reality theory begging the question as to exactly which would be the best way forward. His arguments are however plausible and applicable to some extent especially where he distinguishes the imitation and the reality theory since as it goes a clear distinction between what was considered s art in the olden days in history and what is currently referred to as history and how to distinguish the two. It also gives a clear picture of the various types of artworks, its form, structure and function which would be a basic tool in approaching and understanding the various types of artworks Bibliography Adajian, T. 2007. The definition of Art, the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy London. Danto, A. 1964. The Art world. Journal of Philosophy 61, 574 Gabriel L. 2011. Institutional definition of Art PHD Thesis University of East Angalia George Dickie (1995). The institutional Theory of Art. Read More