Embed Doc
Copy Link
Readcast
Collections

CommentGo Back

Download

Wesleyan University

Art as Appearance: Two Comments on Arthur C. Danto's after the End of ArtAuthor(s): Martin SeelSource:

History and Theory,

Vol. 37, No. 4, Theme Issue 37: Danto and His Critics: ArtHistory, Historiography and After the End of Art (Dec., 1998), pp. 102-114Published by: Blackwell Publishing for Wesleyan UniversityStable URL:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2505398

Accessed: 27/02/2009 10:53

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black .Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with thescholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform thatpromotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Wesleyan University

and

Blackwell Publishing

are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to

History and Theory.

http://www.jstor.org

ART ASAPPEARANCE:TWO COMMENTSON ARTHURC. DANTO'S AFTERTHEEND OF ARTMARTIN EELABSTRACTIn his latestbookaboutartArthurDanto claims hataestheticppearance-visualitynthe visualarts-has becomemoreandmore rrelevantormostof contemporaryrt.Thisessayfirstmmanentlyritiqueshe distinction etween he aesthetic ndartistic roper-ties underlyinghisclaim.Danto's laimabout he rrelevancef theaesthetics not com-patiblewithhe spiritof his ownwritings:whatDantodeniesn

After the End ofArt

hasbeenacornerstonef histheoreticalork ince

TheTransfigurationf the Commonplace,

namely, hatthe aesthetic s indeedbothan elementary nda definingpropertyf art.Examplesranging rom Duchamp's

ountain

to a recentinstallation y the

Art &Language

grouprediscussed o supporthiscritique. econd, heessaydefendsDanto's contentionhatdeveloping "definitionfart"sa sensiblenterprise. ut t turns utthatDanto's self-ascribed)essentialism"oncerning rthas noessentialistmplicationsnanyspecific ense.ArthurDanto'smostimportantachievementnthefield of aesthetics s not theo-retical but practical.Since the publication of TheTransfigurationof theCommonplacehehasdemonstratedthat it ispossibleto beaprofessionalphilosopherofart andasuccessful criticanda trueadmirerof the art of one'sown time.This is notjustapersonalbutaneminentlypoliticalpoint-sincewhatisatstake here is theforeignrelationsbetweenthe artworld and theworldof aca-demic research.Theserelations are much lessforeignnow.Inmodernthinking,artandarttheoryseemedto be naturalnemies,atleastaslongas theoristscouldnot convincethepublicthattheythemselves had thetemperament nd virtuosityofgenuineartists (asinthe case of WalterBenjaminor TheodorW.Adorno).Althoughitis said that Danto himselfis oneoftheleading conceptualartists(thanksohisfamousseries ofmerely imaginedartworksandtheirmerelymate-rialDoppelgdnger),hisreputationas a mediatorbetween theacademyand theartworld doesnotdepend uponan addictionto a romanticconceptionof theartistastheoristandthe theoristas artist.Whathe has shown issimplythatatheoryofartofHegelianstrengthand ambitiondoes not have toignorewhatisgoingonincontemporaryrt.This,therefore,mightbe called Danto's rule:Hard-corephilosophyofart sinapositiontoacknowledgethepluralityof theartisticmovements ofitstime.Orevenstronger:Someonewho believeshe or she has a validdefinitionofartcan

ART AS APPEARANCE

103neverthelessdisplay emphaticappreciationof art. What seemed to beexcludedbyanimplicitlawof artisticsovereignty appearstobe includedinthe life andwork of at leastone singletheoristand critic. Danto's most recent book isjustonemorepieceof evidence for this. Itdevelops strong philosophical claimsabout thehistoryof art and thepositionofartworksamong all other kinds ofthingsandsigns, and atthe sametime itisahighlyintense reflectionon the stateof the artinart.Itsdiscourseproceedsina continuousencounterwith avarietyofcontemporary tyles andworks, therebyfulfillingthe ultimatefunction ofthephilosophyofart as well as of art criticisminanexemplaryway:toenrich andenlightentheperceptionofolder, newer,and thenewest worksof art.This practicalor even existentialdemonstrations anoutcomeofDanto's out-standingheoreticalcontributions.Two basicassumptionsareresponsiblefor theintensityof bothhis philosophicaland his criticalpraxis. (1)Artworksareobjectsintheworldonly insofar astheyare about theworld; theyare about the worldonlyinsofar asthey embodytheirmeaning. (2) Historyof art canbewritten-philosophically-asaquasi-Hegelianhistoryof thegrowing self-consciousnessofart, culminatinginDuchampandWarhol;following that,inthe1960s,artreacheda newageinwhichthereis nolongeraplacefor ateleologicalstoryofartisticprogress.The firstassumptionallows Dantotosaywhat an artwork sor,to be morepreciseand lesshybrid,how itdiffers fromotherobjectsandsigns.The secondallowshim to reactopen-mindedlyoany artisticobject that strikeshim-notexactlythewayin whichcritics,let alonephilosophers,usuallyreactto currentaffairs nart.Nevertheless,there s anirritatingbiasinDanto's more recenttreatmentof art:the claim thataestheticappearance-visualityinthevisual arts-has becomemore and moreirrelevantor mostofcontemporaryrt.Aesthetics,itfollows,isnolonger responsiblefor thetheoryof art.This,Ibelieve,isanunacceptableconsequence,sinceitignoresthepoint-orat least apoint-ofall artisticpro-duction:thecreationofuniqueappearancesntheworldwhichinturndisplayunique interpretationsf theworld. InaHeideggerian diom,onecouldsaythatDanto's latestwritingstend to be notseinsvergessen (forgetfulofbeing),buterscheinungsvergessen forgetfulofappearing).However,sinceI believethat theseparationbetween aestheticsandthephilosophyof artatwhich DantoarrivesnAfterthe EndofArtis not a naturalonsequenceofhisentiretheoreticalworkonthissubject,thefirst ofmycomments will be an immanentcritiqueofhis dis-tinction betweenaestheticand artisticproperties.shallarguethat Danto's claimabout the irrelevanceof the aesthetic is notcompatiblewith thespiritof his ownwritings. Having put things togetheragainandhavingconsultedsomeexamples,mysecondcomment-inthe thirdpartofthisessay-willbe anattempttodefend a claim that isprobablythe most adventurousof allof Danto'scontribu-tions: that tis asensible,non-perverse,non-suicidalenterpriseodevelopa"def-inition ofart."Again myremarksmightbe read asanimmanentcritique,sinceIwould like to show that Danto's(self-ascribed)"essentialism"oncerningarthasnoessentialistimplications.