Hinterland Diary

Art is doing philosophy? . . .

An interesting set of ideas about art, its context and its relation to philosophy comes from the American philosopher and art critic Arthur Danto. What makes something a work of art is not, says Danto, to be found by looking at its obvious properties. Danto believes that what "makes the difference between a Brillo box and a work of art consisting of a Brillo box is a certain theory of art. It is the theory that takes it up into the world of art, and keeps it from collapsing into the real object which it is."

What are we, however, doing when we ask about the difference between a Brillo box in a supermarket and a Brillo box in an art gallery? Danto's answer is that we are asking a philosophical question. Art now prompts us to do philosophy. Much of art today is about boundary testing of 'art': "Can this object be considered art?", "What is art?" Danto argues that art is doing philosophy; art is collapsing into philosophy.

G.W.F. Hegel in the nineteenth century declared that art would in future no longer be a predominant mode of expression for human beings. Danto seems to agree: Art has nothing left to do. It has run itself out, and has as its only project a philosophical one, the definition of art. And that would much better be left to the philosophers.

From "Aesthetics and Philosophy: A Match Made in Heaven?" by Anja Steinbauer for the September/October 2006 issue of Philosophy Now

August 20, 2007 11:50 AM | | Comments (1)



Count me as a reactionary on the question of "what is art." I think the most modern and up-to-date answer to this question is found, paradoxically, at the very beginnings of Western civilization.

People back then simply did not think of art in the way that we do today. We think of art today as primarily a product -- a painting, a printed poem, etc. We think of art, that is, as a "noun."

But ancient peoples thought of art as a verb -- a skill. Any activity that required a great deal of skill and that obeyed agreed upon rules and principles was considered an art.

Geometry was an art. So was astronomy -- or waging war. Like sculpture and architecture, these activities depended upon skill and learning. People who mastered these skills were artists.

Consequently, it took a long time for ancient Greeks to take poetry and music seriously as "art" in this sense because neither appeared to follow rules. Poetry, for instance, appeared to have much more to do with prophecy than with literary skill.

Eventually, of course, Aristotle invented so many rules for poetry that no one could doubt that poetry was indeed an art.

Ancient thinkers came up with many different ways of classifying the arts. But all these classifications have one thing in common: They do not distinguish fine art from craft. That's a distinction that Europeans began to make around 1500.

I think the ancient definition of "art" as a skill has several advantages that might benefit us today.

First, it neatly does away with Danto's perplexities about how to define art. Something is an art if it can be taught and requires a great deal of skill to master.

Second, if art is a skill then it's possible to judge whether this skill has in fact been mastered. In other words, judgments about art aren't simply subjective and arbitrary.

Third, the conception of "art as a skill" is flexible -- a definite asset in a world filled with so many different kinds of cultures and beliefs. We don't have to worry any more about whether there is such a thing as "high art" or "low art." The only real question is what kinds of activities a given culture considers to be highly skilled. We are free to look instead of merely theorize.

Leave a comment

Recent Comments


About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by FlyOver published on August 20, 2007 11:50 AM.

Hinterland Diary was the previous entry in this blog.

Does getting them when they're young really work? is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

AJ Ads

AJ Blogs

AJBlogCentral | rss

About Last Night
Terry Teachout on the arts in New York City
Artful Manager
Andrew Taylor on the business of arts & culture
blog riley
rock culture approximately
critical difference
Laura Collins-Hughes on arts, culture and coverage
Richard Kessler on arts education
Douglas McLennan's blog
Dog Days
Dalouge Smith advocates for the Arts
Art from the American Outback
Life's a Pitch
For immediate release: the arts are marketable
Mind the Gap
No genre is the new genre
Performance Monkey
David Jays on theatre and dance
Plain English
Paul Levy measures the Angles
Real Clear Arts
Judith H. Dobrzynski on Culture
Rockwell Matters
John Rockwell on the arts
Straight Up |
Jan Herman - arts, media & culture with 'tude

Foot in Mouth
Apollinaire Scherr talks about dance
Seeing Things
Tobi Tobias on dance et al...

Jazz Beyond Jazz
Howard Mandel's freelance Urban Improvisation
Focus on New Orleans. Jazz and Other Sounds
Doug Ramsey on Jazz and other matters...

Out There
Jeff Weinstein's Cultural Mixology
Serious Popcorn
Martha Bayles on Film...

classical music
Creative Destruction
Fresh ideas on building arts communities
The Future of Classical Music?
Greg Sandow performs a book-in-progress
On the Record
Exploring Orchestras w/ Henry Fogel
Harvey Sachs on music, and various digressions
Bruce Brubaker on all things Piano
Kyle Gann on music after the fact
Greg Sandow on the future of Classical Music
Slipped Disc
Norman Lebrecht on Shifting Sound Worlds

Jerome Weeks on Books
Quick Study
Scott McLemee on books, ideas & trash-culture ephemera

Drama Queen
Wendy Rosenfield: covering drama, onstage and off
lies like truth
Chloe Veltman on how culture will save the world

Aesthetic Grounds
Public Art, Public Space
Another Bouncing Ball
Regina Hackett takes her Art To Go
John Perreault's art diary
Lee Rosenbaum's Cultural Commentary
Modern Art Notes
Tyler Green's modern & contemporary art blog
Creative Commons License
This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.