Danto

Danto finds that art history and theory are important determinates on whether an object is art. An object can even be art solely because of theory and history as the two images of bifurcated rectangles showed. They were exactly the same and yet with different reference points one could be considered art and not the other. He also uses the example of a bed with paint streaks that is considered art. One problem I think this theory has is in determining which theories are valid. If all art theories are valid then something that Tolstoy considered art, like a painting that conveys sadness, is not art to Bell who finds it is not a peculiar emotion if it is sadness, so a work can be art and not art at the same time. In order for art to be determined by theory there must be agreement on what theory to use and even among experts that would have to be very contentious. Besides if art is determined by theories and theories are determined by the art that exists then nothing seems to be solved by looking towards theories as the determiners of art. Most of the theories we have read seem to be trying to find commonalities among all art that will allow something objective to emerge, so they are using art to make their theories. Art cannot be determined by theory if theory is determined by art because the argument becomes circular. An interesting problem with many of these art theories is that they are based on the art of their time. People seem to try to fit the art that evolves into their time under a new theory of art which becomes outdated during the next evolution in art. It would be intriguing to see someone anticipate directions in which art might go within their theory rather than limiting it to what is already known. This would be very difficult to do but might result in a theory that better stands the test of time.

How does or should Danto deal with conflicting, legitimate art theories?   

Response to Brycen

            I do not think we can conclude that art is defined by when it is being done. Although people tend to understand when art is being done, this is based on recognizing our own conceptualizations of art. In order to recognize when something is being done we have to know we are referring to. If we asked someone who did not already have a concept of art to recognize it by when it was being done then they would simply be confused and never figure it out. Even in the way you phrased the question a concept is required, “If something is art when it is doing something, than haven’t we defined art right there?” The it is required in order for something to be done and we do not have a clear understanding of what that it is. Without a definition of art separate from it is art when we recognize it as art then anyone could judge what is art and anyone could make anything art. The rock on display becomes art and I do not think art is really so open. If anything is art when used as such then art has no distinguishing features and loses its value. If anything is art at any time that anyone says so, then viewing art becomes as simple as going outside and saying I like this discarded soda bottle I will display it in my home as art. Also, as we said in class we would consider a painting to be a painting even if it were used as a blanket. Someone who saw another person using a painting as a blanket is likely to say “what a silly use for a painting.” This means that people do recognize art even when it is not being used as such. If a painting used as a blanket is still a painting, then defining art based on use does not make sense. Too many counterexamples would be readily accessible.

                Do you think art needs to have restrictions placed on it or do all restrictions serve at some point as arbitrary limitations on people’s creativity? Is requiring creativity itself a limitation on art?

Response to Alex's Theory

Alex’s post was very helpful in increasing my understanding of the theory he has been putting forth which I think has some quite positive qualities. It seems to leave art relatively open as there is no overarching definition and instead art is defined as the whole made up of variant parts. Each part consists of a spectrum of further parts in an effort to break down categories of art into their varying members. So art is somewhat defined as all instances of visual art, writing and music. I believe the largest circle, which is unlabeled is art, but a subcategory is called art. Since he says this category plus music can be combined in such instances as animation I believe he means visual art and is not categorizing art as a part of art. If this is true then writing is probably a sub-genre of visual art. Also could, for example, perfume creation be considered art? If it can then that would have to be a separate sub category of art because it is neither visual nor auditory like music. Spoken poetry would also be a separate category if music is the title of the subgenre because it is auditory, but not music.

 The breakdown of music into a color spectrum is interesting and could mean one of two things in my mind. Either each shade of blue, to use his example, is an equally good shade of music and simply differentiates the two or each shade of blue delineates a quality distinction of art. I am inclined to think that he is going in the second direction because he marks two example genres. One is classical and one is electronica. They are marked on almost exactly opposite ends of the spectrum. Since classical is the more respected of the two genres of music I am guessing that the darker end of the spectrum is the music that would be judged better. Also the way the diagram is designed it looks like animation is outside the circle of art which I think, since it a combination of two parts deemed art, is not intentional. I think that animation can exist without music but not without visual art so maybe animation should be a circle drawn almost like a Venn diagram but with no part singularly in music only with the overlap. (I apologize if that is unclear. I do not know how to draw diagrams on the computer.)     

If I am confused on any aspects of the theory please feel free to correct me.

Can art be defined as the sum of its parts? If so how do we recognize when something should be considered a part?