What Is Anti-Art?

Author(s): George Dickie

Source: The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism , Summer, 1975, Vol. 33, No. 4
(Summer, 1975), pp. 419-421
Published by: Wiley on behalf of The American Society for Aesthetics

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/429654

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

The American Society for Aesthetics and Wiley are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism

This content downloaded from

200.201.48.2 on Mon, 04 Dec 2023 19:32:18 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 GEORGE DICKIE

What is Anti-Art?

IN ORDER TO DISCOVER what anti-art is, lowing Arthur Danto3 I have called "the
I suppose that one must first answer the ques- artworld," consists of a core of creators,
tion "What is art?" 1 One may feel, however, presenters, and appreciators which is sur-
that the appropriate question to ask in aes- rounded by critics, theorists, and philosophers
thetics at the present moment is "What isn't of art. The creators are the painters, writers,
art?" or more precisely "What in the world actors, and the like. The presenters are
isn't or can't be art?" Nevertheless, "What is museum directors, gallery managers, musi-
art?" has a catchier, and certainly a more cians, actors (in a different role from that
familiar, ring to it, and perhaps for that mentioned just above) and so on. The ap-
reason we should begin with it. preciators are the museum-goers, concert-
In the more distant past, the questions goers, theater-goers, etc. In addition to all
"What is art?" seems to have been under- these personnel there is the machinery re-
stood by most to be a question like "What is quired to present works of art: museums,
a mammal?" or, to put it more generally, as aconcert halls, art galleries, theaters, walls of
question about what observable characteris- houses, etc. All of these persons and machin-
tics the members of a certain class of indi- ery interact to establish and maintain the
viduals have in common which make them institution that is the artworld. The various
belong to that class. That there are difficulties
personnel fulfill their established roles. For
in trying to understand "What is art?" in this theater-goers enter a theater with
example,
traditional way was first argued by Paulcertain
Ziff expectations about what they will
in his "The Task of Defining a Work of Art," 2
experience and with a relatively well-defined
and a number of other philosophers have idea of how they ought to behave in the face
subsequently argued in a similar vein. Once of what they are presented with. The reason
the futility of traditional procedure had been that a particular thing is a work of art is not
revealed, philosophers were free to theorize (and never has been) that it possesses a certain
about art in a different way. observable characteristic or characteristics
Recently I have tried to begin thinking but because it has acquired a status within
about art in a different way. Instead of the artworld.4
focusing attention on particular works of art If the foregoing gives a rough indication of
with an eye to seeking a generalization by way what art is, we are still left with the question
of abstracting the observable characteristic "What is anti-art?" The expression "anti-art"
or characteristics they have in common, I is a difficult one to pin down: it is slippery,
have attempted to focus on the social frame- sometimes used to mean one thing and some-
work in which particular works are embedded times another; and it is rubbery, sometimes
and arrive at an institutional conception of it and its opposite are predicted of the same
art. The institutional framework, which fol-
thing. (In the following I shall be talking
primarily about graphic art.) Its rubberiness
GEORGE DICKIE is professor of Philosophy at the University
of Illinois at Chicago Circle. is illustrated by two of the remarks of Hans

This content downloaded from

200.201.48.2 on Mon, 04 Dec 2023 19:32:18 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 420 GEORGE DICKIE

Richter, himself a Dadaist, about how Du- "artists" which do not result in any object-
champ conceived of his "ready-mades." product. There may be other distinct kinds
Richter says that Duchamp "declared that of anti-art. Some apparently distinct anti-art,
(the) ready-mades became works of art as however, may be a disguised instance of one
soon as he said they were." 5 Later Richter of the four. For example, Warhol's Brillo Box
writes that Duchamp "stresses again and may be a special kind of "ready-made,"
again that "ready-mades" are not works of namely, a "made-ready-made," or to use
art but of non-art, the results of discursive Duchamp's own term a "ready-made aided."
rather than sensory insights." 6 Thus Du- Surely, however, the four kinds listed are
champ first declares that "ready-mades" are sufficient for present purposes.
art, but then stresses that they are not. Of The first two kinds of anti-art-works
course there is no necessary contradiction which employ chance and works with bizarre
here because Duchamp's declarations were content-raise no theoretical problems; they
presumably addressed to the world at large are easily assimilated developments within
and his stressings addressed to his fellow art, and it was quite natural for me, when I
Dadaists. Just the sort of remarks to be ex- listed the four above, to say of the first two
pected from a Dadaist; in fact, the kind of that each is art which does such and such.
remarks that make one a Dadaist. The slip- "Ready-mades" and the fourth kind of anti-
periness of the meaning of "anti-art" is il- art are, however, another matter entirely.
lustrated by the following. The expression With them something strange has happened.
was sometimes used (perhaps first used) to In his Artworks and Packages, Professor Rosen-
indicate that chance played an important berg recognizes Duchamp's "SnowshoveP' as
role in the making of a work of art. Here the a work of art but says that to contemplate it
meaning depends on a certain kind of tech- is senseless and that the exhibiting of such a
nique used in producing art. Sometimes paint- thing by a museum "is typical of the fatuous-
ings which are very different from conven-ness of an institution that has lost its bear-
tional paintings in what they depict or in ing." 8 We have works of art which are not
some other way were called anti-art. Here theworth looking at! Of course, there have
meaning of the term relates to "the content"always been conventional works of art which
of paintings. Sometimes "ready-mades," are not worth looking at, but "ready-mades"
which are not simply very different from con- are not worth looking at in a different way.
ventional paintings and sculptures but differ- The question is, then, how can a "ready-
ent in a wholly new dimension, were called made," which certainly seems entitled to the
anti-art. Here it is difficult to pinpoint exactly label "anti-art" because it is senseless to con-
what the meaning of the expression relates to,template it, nevertheless, be a work of art?
but it is clearly more than a matter of having The answer I would give is that Duchamp's
a very different content. Finally, "anti-art" "ready-mades" acquired the status of art
is sometimes used to refer, not to objects, but because of his declarations. His non-public,
to the actions of "artists." Harold Rosenberg behind-the-hand stressings to his chuckling
cites the case of the New York artist Vito cohorts that "ready-mades" were not art had
Acconci who "periodically notifies the art- no effect. The relation of his public declara-
world, by mail, that on certain dates he will tions to his private stressings is rather like
mount a stool in his studio x number of times the relation of testimony under oath to gossip
and that this 'work' may be viewed at the under the gatepost-it is the testimony which
designated hours." 7 This artist also produced officially counts. Professor Rosenberg nicely
such other "works" as counting his pulse describes what may be called the transub-
beats and moving the contents of his apart- stantiation of anti-art into art within the art-
ment to an art gallery. world as follows-"The victory of Dada-
There are then at least four different kinds Surrealist thinking has been so nearly com-
of anti-art: 1) art in which chance plays a plete as to project its values in reverse; its
part, 2) art which has strikingly unusual con-anti-art philosophies have turned into an
tent, 3) "ready-mades," and 4) actions by aesthetic and its repugnance to the pious

This content downloaded from

200.201.48.2 on Mon, 04 Dec 2023 19:32:18 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
What is Anti-Art? 421

worship of masterpieces has brought into Zero to say that he too is merely exercising the
being Dada-Surrealist icons and holy machinery of the artworld. Acconci's and
men... ." 9 It is the old story of the establish-
Zero's "art" is real anti-art: art because they
use the framework of the artworld, anti
ment co-opting its revolutionary challengers:
the challengers attacked the establishmentbecause
butthey do nothing with it. Acconci and
in doing so made use of establishment Zero are "artistic bureaucrats" in one sense of
proce-
dures and were entrapped. (Some maythe have
abused term "bureaucrat," that is, they
been more willing captives than others.) occupy a niche in an institutional structure
When Duchamp declared that his "ready- but do nothing which is really productive. If
mades" were works of art and entered them all artists "produced" only anti-art, that is,
in art shows he committed a public and quasi-
were anti-artists, then Hegel's prophecy
official act which enmeshed him in an institu- would be fulfilled-art would be dead.
tional framework, independently of and in If art were to die, however, its death would
spite of his satirical motive. Whatever his not necessarily be permanent, for unlike indi-
intention or intentions, Duchamp succeeded viduals, institutions can be revived. Perhaps
in conferring the status of art on his "ready- art would revive, as our need for it today
mades"-he was perhaps an artist in spite of seems as great as ever. Professor Rosenberg
himself. This, then is how we get objects whichbelieves, I think, in the power of art to revive
are works of art but which are not worth from its near death or perhaps from what is
looking at. Let me remark parenthetically, only feigned death. He writes, "Painting
that "ready-mades" are worth thinking today is a profession one of whose aspects is
about, however, because when works of art the pretense of overthrowing it. Once the
do not have qualities worth looking at, it is vanguard myth has faded, the pretense that
easier to think about them in relation to the art is engaged in self-immolation will have to
artworld. This is perhaps the only thing to be dropped." 10
think about them.
Let us now consider the anti-art of Acconci
and friends. These "artists" go Duchamp one
better: they perform an action and make a 1 This paper is a slightly revised version of a sym-
posium paper read at the 1972 meeting of the Ameri-
declaration but do not "produce" (that is, can Society for Aesthetics in Sarasota, Florida. Paul
end up with) an object which in any way Ziff and Harold Rosenberg were the other members
resembles traditional paintings or sculptures. of the panel.
The only thing left to do (and there is a high 2 The Philosophical Review 62 (1953), 58-78. This
article has been frequently reprinted in anthologies.
probability that it has already been done) is
3 Arthur Danto, "The Artworld," Journal of
for an "artist," call him "Zero," to make a Philosophy (1964), 571-584.
declaration and not do anything. Acconci is 4 For a full account of this conception of art see
exercising the machinery of the artworld and the first chapter of my book, Art and the Aesthetic: An
conferring the status of art on something- Institutionol Analysis (Cornell Univ. Press, 1974).
5Hans Richter, Dada: Art and Anti-art (London,
an action-which is radically different from 1965), p. 88.
traditional paintings and sculptures, and even 6 Ibid., p. 92.
radically different from "ready-mades." The 7 Harold Rosenberg, The De-definition of Art (New
possibility I suggested of Zero's declaring and York, 1972), p. 243.
8Harold Rosenberg, Artworks and Packages (New
doing nothing amounts to a mere exercising of
York, 1969), p. 23.
the machinery of the artworld. And perhaps 9 Ibid., p. 200.
Acconci's case is similar enough to the case of 1Op. cit., The De-definition of Art, pp. 221-222.

This content downloaded from

200.201.48.2 on Mon, 04 Dec 2023 19:32:18 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms