Arthur Danto writes that: What in the end makes the difference between a Brillo box

and a work of art consisting of a Brillo Box is a certain theory of art. How does Danto
arrive at this conclusion?
This essay will discuss how art critic and philosopher Arthur Danto arrives at the conclusion
what in the end makes the difference between a Brillo box and a work of art consisting of a
Brillo Box is a certain theory of art. Dantos influential work The Artworld describes two
contrasting ways of looking at art, Imitation Theory and Reality Theory. Then the is of
artistic identification is explained: an important concept when differentiating between
everyday objects and artworks. Lastly, Dantos argument concludes that the Artworld, and
certain theories of art are required to make art possible, as well as being the crucial
distinction between one object that sits in a stockroom, and another (for the sake of Dantos
reasoning, the two are visually identical) which sits in a gallery as a legitimate artwork. This
discussion revolves around indiscernible objects, namely Warhols Brillo Box which is made
to appear like the common household item, prompting questions regarding its ontological
status. Although Danto is more concerned with the difference between two indiscernible
objects than actually defining art, he manages to supply convincing answers, albeit raising
more questions in the process. Each concept builds on the previous, and by progressing
through this set of coherent steps, Danto ultimately leads us to his conclusion.

Before Danto reaches his conclusion regarding the difference between real world objects and
artworks, he first outlines two opposing approaches to art, Imitation Theory and Reality
Theory. Imitation Theory alludes to Platos somewhat cynical conception of art as mimesis,
where art merely provides a reflection or copy of the physical world, rendering it a number
of steps displaced from true reality. Danto comments how Imitation Theory, though
simplistic, is powerful, as it brings unity into a complex domain and manages to define art

as a process of mirroring. 1 Under Imitation Theory there is a clear path to separating what
is and is not art. Yet with the arrival of Post-Impressionist art, ontological questions were
raised, and new theories were required. In order for Post-Impressionist art to fit the mould of
Imitation Theory it could only be viewed as unsuccessful attempts at representation.
Alternately, coming from the perspective of Reality Theory these artworks could be
regarded as forms which occupy the same plane as the physical world. As Roger Fry points
out they do not seek to imitate form, but to create form; not to imitate life, but to find an
equivalent for lifeIn fact, they aim not at illusion but at reality.2 These artworks were made
with the purpose of being non-deceptive, creating a new ontological division, sitting between
real objects and real imitations of real objects.3 With Duchamps Readymades and Warhols
Brillo Box further problems are created. Duchamp describes how the Readymades were
selected with absolute indifference from a multitude of real world objects for their very
absence of taste and aesthetic value, such as a snow shovel.4 These are artworks which have
become reality, and real life objects which have become artworks: Danto uses the example of
a painting of the number 3 being a 3 made out of paint, a painting of a numeral that is a
numeral.5 With Reality Theory comes the question of how do we know to identify these as
art? George Dickie argues that Danto is not concerned with what makes something a work of
art, but rather what is required for someone to realise that a certain kind of thing can be a
work of art.6

1 Arthur Danto, The Artworld in Philosophy looks at the arts: contemporary readings in
aesthetics (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1987) p.155.
2 Roger Fry, The French Post-Impressionists in Vision and Design (London: Chatto and
Windus, 1920) p.157.
3 Danto, p.157.
4 Marcel Duchamp, Apropos of Readymades, Art and Artists, vol.1, no.4, July 1966, p.47.
5 Danto, p.158.
6 George Dickie, A Tale of Two Artworlds in Mark Rollins (ed), Philosophers and their
Critics: Danto and His Critics (Wiley Blackwell, 2012) p.113.

As with Dantos Imitation and Reality theories, the is of artistic identification is a

concept which leads to his conclusion. In order to illustrate this, Danto uses the character of
Testadura, a philistine. When Testadura encounters a painting, he declares all I see is
paint.7 While the artist may agree with Testadura, these are two conflicting understandings;
although they are physically looking at the same object, it is through these incompatible
interpretations that the painting transforms. Testadura cannot comprehend that the artwork is
about more than its physicality and represents something; he views it as a real object as
opposed to a work of art. According to Danto, the is of artistic identification is a free act of
naming, stating the Brillo Box of the artworld may just be the Brillo box of the real one,
separated and united by the is of artistic identification.8 Conversely, Crispin Sartwell
disputes Dantos assertion that the two forms of is (one of artistic identification, and one in
the ordinary sense) contradict each other; claiming that an artwork can occupy both meanings
simultaneously.9 Furthermore, on the basis of the is of artistic identification, it is Dantos
view that the essence of an artwork lies within its potential to be interpreted. Consequently, I
would argue that Danto is denying that pure abstraction exists, and that paint cannot simply
be paint when considered artistically. As Richard Lind contends, Dantos theory, which
alleges that there are necessary and sufficient conditions for art, completely fails to take into
account the need for there to be any aesthetic value in an artwork.10 For a work of art to be
interpreted, a viewer must be aesthetically engaged; while this is subjective we can reach a
mutual ground that some objects possess this ability more than others. Therefore, this aspect
of Dantos theory is idealistic and lacking when applied outside the context of indiscernible
objects. However, the is of artistic identification is a clear step to Danto reaching his
7 Danto, p.162.
8 Danto, p.164.
9 Crispin Sartwell, Aesthetic Dualism and the Transfiguration of the Commonplace, The
Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, vol.46, no.4, Summer 1988, p.465.
10 Richard Lind, The Aesthetic Essence of Art, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism,
vol.50, no.2, Spring 1992, p.118.

conclusion regarding the difference between a Brillo box and a work of art consisting of a
Brillo Box.
Following on from the is of artistic identification, Dantos argument culminates in a
discussion of certain theories of art and the Artworld. These are essential in making the
existence of art possible, as well as being the difference between an artwork and an everyday
object. When taking the central example of Warhols Brillo Box and comparing it to the Brillo
box of the stockroom the only distinguishing factor is that one, Warhols artwork, is viewed
in the context of the Artworld and was created in an atmosphere of artistic theories.11
Through this lens, a real life object becomes a work of art. However, the world must be ready
to receive it, as an object cannot be lifted into the realm of art without an appropriate,
preexisting art theory through which it can be interpreted. This knowledge of certain theories
of art is what is required for a viewer to grasp the is of artistic identification, and in
conjunction with the Artworld, provides an environment where art is possible. One aspect of
this aura of artistic theory which surrounds an artwork, is having knowledge of its history,
which for Danto includes the artists intentions. So when the actual visual appearance of
Warhols Brillo Box is considered, it appears quite unlike the Brillo box of the real world: an
inconvenient reality that doesnt align with the premise upon which Danto pins his concepts.
Daniel Herwitz asks If Warhol's primary reason in making these boxes was to stimulate the
thought that they are identical to ordinary ones, differing only by their presence in the gallery
and a theory to back them up, why did he make them oversized, why are they half-painted
and half- mass-produced, why their comedy?12 Another problem that arises is what
constitutes Dantos Artworld and what is sufficient knowledge of artistic theories? If it is
only Artworld members which hold the key to interpreting artworks, this becomes
11 Danto, p.162.
12 Daniel Herwitz, The Journal of Aesthetics and Dantos Philosophical Criticism, The
Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, vol.51, no.2, Spring 1993, p.264.

exclusionary and elitist, and as we can presuppose they do not act as a united body, it is
simultaneously unregulated. Dickie calls this into question, labelling Dantos account of the
Artworld inconsistent.13 Regardless of their potential shortcomings, Dantos final points of
the Artworld and certain theories of art succeed in illustrating his realisation of how a real
life object can become an artwork, and the crucial difference between the two.

Danto arrives at his conclusion what in the end makes the difference between a Brillo box
and a work of art consisting of a Brillo Box is a certain theory of art, by clearly expressing a
number of distinct concepts, each leading on from one another. He does so by first outlining
two possible approaches to defining art Imitation Theory and Reality Theory, the latter
which becomes incredibly illuminating when considering Duchamps Readymades and
Warhols Brillo Box. A discussion of the is of artistic identification then follows, which
involves recognizing artworks as more than mere objects -as form in conjunction with
meaning. If the viewer cannot master this, they cannot truly see it as art, and as Danto asserts,
it is through these conflicting interpretations that it can either be an artwork or a real world
object. This is extended in a further, final argument that the Artworld and certain theories of
art are required to make art possible, and the distinguishing factor between a Brillo box and
a work of art consisting of a Brillo Box. Though not without their limitations, each theory is
a significant step in revealing how Danto reaches his conclusion.

Bibliography

13 Dickie, p.113.

Carrier, David, Danto and His Critics: After the End of Art and Art History, History and
Theory, vol.37, no.4, December 1998, pp.1-16.
Copeland, Roger, Review: After the End of Art: Contemporary Art and the Pale of History
by Arthur C. Danto, The Wilson Quarterly, vol.21, no.1, Winter 1977, pp.90-92.
Danto, Arthur. The Artworld in Joseph Margolis (ed), Philosophy Looks at the
Arts: Contemporary Readings in Aesthetics (Philadelphia: Temple University
Press, 1987, pp.154-67.
Dickie, George, A Tale of Two Artworlds in Mark Rollins (ed), Philosophers and their
Critics: Danto and His Critics (Wiley Blackwell, 2012), pp.111-117.
Duchamp, Marcel, Apropos of Readymades, Art and Artists, vol.1, no.4, July 1966, p.47.
Fry, Roger, The French Post-Impressionists, in Vision and Design (London: Chatto and
Windus, 1920), pp.156-159.
Herwitz, Daniel, The Journal of Aesthetics and Dantos Philosophical Criticism, The
Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, vol.51, no.2, Spring 1993, pp.261-270.
Kennick, W.E., Theories of Art and the Artworld, The Journal of Philosophy, vol.61, no.19,
1964, pp.585-587.
Lind, Richard, The Aesthetic Essence of Art, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism,
vol.50, no.2, Spring 1992, pp.117-129.
Mattick, Paul, The Andy Warhol of Philosophy and the Philosophy of Andy Warhol,
Critical Enquiry, The University of Chicago Press, vol.24, no.4, Summer 1998, pp.965-987.
Sartwell, Crispin, Aesthetic Dualism and the Transfiguration of the Commonplace, The
Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, vol.46, no.4, Summer 1988, pp.461-467.