A Puzzle for Readers of Arthur Danto’s Aesthetic Theory

Sometimes theories of art are considered in isolation from broader intellectual concerns. One strength Arthur Danto’s much-discussed aesthetics lies its intimate relationship with his philosophical system. The definition is linked to action, knowledge and historiography. That analysis summarized book Connections the World: Basic Concepts Philosophy, which presents a simple triangular diagram: subject/representation/world. subject acts on world, world causes representations. relations between subject, representations, representations world. first relation that causality, third truth [1].And understand second relation, we need theory self, is, an explanation connection person experiencing them. Danto claims pretty much every basic position can be defined this structure. We connected world; aware continuity experience; act upon world: These relationships must described.As it stands, diagram raises interesting problem. offers comprehensive list everything exists: He refines two later versions diagram, also World, he true belief, proposition facts, account action when describes idea object [2]. In all three diagrams there subjects, task philosophy sketch their as revealed action.How then should place itself system? another book, treatise historiography, writes, “It always fair question put, whether theoretical work history apply self” [3]. same point made about diagram. Since shows exists, it’s ask what discussion. cannot representation because includes both if accept theory; or either. wants view stands outside But how possible?Danto’s creates problem, (surprisingly my judgment) doesn’t consider. What exists according him distinct kinds things—subject, From view, then, these things presented diagram? Thomas Nagel discusses “the nowhere” identify goal search for impersonal [4]. Without reference Danto, identifies real A painter depict landscape some particular view. nowhere, illustration stand possible? If you above city, whole. And could earth, would see entire planet vantage point. there’s no way look at describe structure supposes. There contradiction claiming ideas objects, showing relationship, God’s-eye looking viewpoint by hypothesis, world.Perhaps, akin illustrations “impossible worlds” discussed Ernst Gombrich Art Illusion, examples William Hogarth M.C. Escher, structures “cannot exist our world” [5]. They like pictures reality but elements depicted don’t fit together. illogical effects Hogarth’s engraving False Perspective (1754). man distant hill looks large woman bending out window inn seen light pipe her candle. trees appear become larger further distance us, yet them overlap sign [6].Maybe, simply have omitted Were World printed minus diagrams, loss suffered, though argument might more difficult follow. really resolve easy enough someone else turn into artwork.Imagine we’re small artwork—a drawing triangle. points labeled joined straight lines. This seems linear drawing. reader may ask, Is artwork not very critically analyzed earlier? It isn’t. claimed after early period, artworks did philosophy, quit art-making. one finds potential artworks—the discussed. More exactly, works but, makes clear, argument. differs kind art. For example, scale, color lines typeface matter needs only include words “subject/representation/world” linking them.Imagine, artist reads books chooses make copies devoted accounts Warhol’s Brillo Box, she takes turns called Diagram—a indiscernible banal image reproduced University California Press paperback edition World. midcareer who good gallery, asks price image, product, says, years study training visual artist; considerably higher than Amazon $31.95, postage included Prime members. Soon enough, Museum Modern purchases drawing, puts show sells full-size limited-edition replicas shop.And taking story full circle, visiting exhibition Diagram, graduate student Columbia sends Journal Philosophy submission “The Artworld” whose title, indiscernible, contents different, argues, found 1964 publication, duplicates word-for-word [7]. version essay, up passage where read difference box art,” writes: keeps collapsing object, (in sense other artistic identification)” [8]. Here, Diagram mere After all, observes, know “to (i) something (ii) embody meaning” [9]. here quotes progress, tentatively titled End Art: Contemporary Pale History. “What I learned Danto,” “is use verbal images texts meaning depends context they presented.”Here extend text “Indiscernibles Essence Hegelian Turn Aesthetic Theory,” Library Living Philosophers. Volume XXXIII. C. (Chicago: Open Court, 2013) 215–228. thought copying Transfiguration Commonplace: (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard Press, 1981). Thanks due Lydia Goehr, Joachim Pissarro Robert Stecker comments earlier drafts.