Arthur Coleman Danto (born January 1, 1924^[1] is an American art critic and philosopher. He is best known as the influential, long-time art critic for The Nation and for his work in philosophical aesthetics and philosophy of history, though he has contributed significantly to a number of fields. His interests span thought, feeling, philosophy of art, theories of representation, philosophical psychology, Hegel's aesthetics, and the philosophers Maurice Merleau-Ponty and Arthur Schopenhauer.

Background and education[link]

Danto was born in Ann Arbor, Michigan, January 1, 1924, and grew up in Detroit. After spending two years in the Army, Danto studied art and history at Wayne University (now Wayne State University) and then pursued graduate study in philosophy at Columbia University. From 1949 to 1950, Danto studied in Paris on a Fulbright scholarship under Maurice Merleau-Ponty, and in 1951 returned to teach at Columbia, where he is currently Johnsonian Professor of Philosophy Emeritus.

Thought[link]

"Artworld" and the Definition of Art[link]

Danto laid the groundwork for an institutional definition of art that sought to answer the questions raised by the emerging phenomenon of twentieth century art. The definition of the term “art” is a subject of constant contention and many books and journal articles have been published arguing over the answer to the question, What is Art? Definitions can be categorized into conventional and non-conventional definitions. Non-conventional definitions take a concept like the aesthetic as an intrinsic characteristic in order to account for the phenomena of art. Conventional definitions reject this connection to aesthetic, formal, or expressive properties as essential to defining art but rather, in either an institutional or historical sense, say that “art” is basically a sociological category. In terms of classificatory disputes about art, Danto takes a conventional approach. His "institutional definition of art" considers whatever art schools, museums, and artists get away with, regardless of formal definitions. Danto has written on this subject in several of his recent works and a detailed treatment is to be found in Transfiguration of the Commonplace.^[2]

The essay "The Artworld" in which Danto coined the term “artworld”, by which he meant cultural context or “an atmosphere of art theory,”^[3] first appeared in the Journal of Philosophy (1964) and has since been widely reprinted. It has had considerable influence on aesthetic philosophy and, according to professor of philosophy Stephen David Ross, "especially upon George Dickie's institutional theory of art. Dickie defines an art work as an artifact 'which has had conferred upon it the status of candidate for appreciation by some person or persons acting in behalf of a certain social institution (the artworld)' (p. 43.)"^[4]

According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Danto's definition has been glossed as follows: something is a work of art if and only if (i) it has a subject (ii) about which it projects some attitude or point of view (has a style) (iii) by means of rhetorical ellipsis (usually metaphorical) which ellipsis engages audience participation in filling in what is missing, and (iv) where the work in question and the interpretations thereof require an art historical context. (Danto, Carroll) Clause (iv) is what makes the definition institutionalist. The view has been criticized for entailing that art criticism written in a highly rhetorical style is art, lacking but requiring an independent account of what makes a context art historical, and for not applying to music."^[3]

The End of Art[link]

The basic meaning of the term "art" has changed several times over the centuries, and has continued to evolve during the 20th century as well. Danto describes the history of Art in his own contemporary version of Hegel's dialectical history of art. "Danto is not claiming that no-one is making art anymore; nor is he claiming that no good art is being made any more. But he thinks that a certain history of western art has come to an end, in about the way that Hegel suggested it would."^[5] The "end of art" refers to the beginning of our modern era of art in which art no longer adheres to the constraints of imitation theory but serves a new purpose. Art began with an "era of imitation, followed by an era of ideology, followed by our post-historical era in which, with qualification, anything goes... In our narrative, at first only mimesis [imitation] was art, then several things were art but each tried to extinguish its competitors, and then, finally, it became apparent that there were no stylistic or philosophical constraints. There is no special way works of art have to be. And that is the present and, I should say, the final moment in the master narrative. It is the end of the story"^[6]

Art criticism[link]

Arthur Danto was an art critic for The Nation from 1984 to 2009, and has also published numerous articles in other journals. In addition, he is an editor of The Journal of Philosophy and a contributing editor of the Naked Punch Review and Artforum. In art criticism, he has published several collected essays, including Encounters and Reflections: Art in the Historical Present (Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1990), which won the National Book Critics Circle Prize for Criticism in 1990; Beyond the Brillo Box: The Visual Arts in Post-Historical Perspective (Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1992); Playing With the Edge: The Photographic Achievement of Robert Mapplethorpe (University of California, 1995); and The Madonna of the Future: Essays in a Pluralistic Art World (Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2000) and Unnatural Wonders: Essays from the Gap Between Art and Life.

In 1996, he received the Frank Jewett Mather Award for art criticism from the College Art Association.^[7]

Works[link]

Books[link]

Danto is the author of numerous books on philosophy and art, including:

• Nietzsche as Philosopher (1965)
• What Philosophy Is (1968)
• Analytical Philosophy of Action (1973)
• Analytical Philosophy of Knowledge
• Sartre (Fontana Modern Masters, 1975)
• The Transfiguration of the Commonplace (1981)
• Narration and Knowledge (1985) - Including earlier book Analytical Philosophy of History (1965)
• The Philosophical Disenfranchisement of Art (1986)
• Mysticism and Morality: Oriental Thought and Moral Philosophy (1987)
• Beyond the Brillo Box: The Visual Arts in Post-Historical Perspective (1992)
• Connections to the World: The Basic Concepts of Philosophy (1997)
• After the End of Art (1997)
• The Abuse of Beauty (2003)
• Red Grooms (2004)
• Andy Warhol (2009)

Essays[link]

• "The Artworld" (1964) Journal of Philosophy LXI, 571-584
• The State of the Art (1987)
• Encounters and Reflections: Art in the Historical Present (1990)
• Playing With the Edge: The Photographic Achievement of Robert Mapplethorpe (1995)
• The Wake of Art: Criticism, Philosophy, and the Ends of Taste (1998)
• Hegel's End-of-Art Thesis (1999)
• The Madonna of the Future: Essays in a Pluralistic Art World (2000)
• Philosophizing Art: Selected Essays (2001)
• The Body/Body Problem: Selected Essays (2001)
• The Poetry of Meaning and Loss: The Glass Dresses of Karen LaMonte (2005)^[8] Karen LaMonte
• Unnatural Wonders: Essays from the Gap Between Art and Life (2007)

Notes[link]

Further reading[link]

• Action, Art, History: Engagements with Arthur C. Danto: A collection of essays edited by Daniel Herwitz and Michael Kelly, including contributions by Frank Ankersmit, Hans Belting, Stanley Cavell, Donald Davidson, Lydia Goehr, Gregg Horowitz, Philip Kitcher, Daniel Immerwahr, Daniel Herwitz and Michael Kelly and replies by Danto himself.
• Danto and his Critics (1993). A collection of essays including contributions by David Carrier, Richard Wollheim, Jerry Fodor, and George Dickie.
• Danto and His Critics: Art History, Historiography and After the End of Art. An issue of History and Theory Journal where philosophers David Carrier, Frank Ankersmit, Noël Carroll, Michael Kelly, Brigitte Hilmer, Robert Kudielka, Martin Seeland and Jacob Steinbrenner address his work; includes a final reply by the author.
• Tiziana Andina, Arthur Danto: Philosopher of Pop, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2011

External links[link]

• "Is it art?" - an interview with Alan Saunders of ABC Radio National (03/2006)
• Biography Arthur C. Danto's Biography on Columbia University Website.
• "Danto on Art" The Partially Examined Life - Episode 16 (podcast)

This article is an orphan, as few or no other articles link to it. Please introduce links to this page from related articles; suggestions may be available. (December 2011)

Irene Caesar

Irene Caesar (Ирина Цезарь) (born 10 September 1963)^[1] is a Russian ^[2]-American conceptual artist^[3] and philosopher.^[4] She became a professional artist^[5] in 1988,^[6] and came ^[7] to prominence ^[8] in Russia^[9] in the early 1990s,^[10] with articles about her in major Russian newspapers of that time.^[11] Caesar produced a series of performances documented in photographs in the style of absurdism, close to the theatre of the absurd of Samuel Beckett and Eugene Ionesco.^[12] They were staged as role-games,^[13] which expressed some concepts in a symbolic way ^[14] by making participants interact with some object or prop,^[15] with themselves, or between each other in some absurd situations.^[16] These performances ^[17] were staged not as static tableaux vivants, since they were characterized by a high degree of dynamism and interaction between Caesar and the participants.^[18] As a way of questioning modern art, Caesar created a series of photographic portraits of some well-known critics, film directors, and artists, including Arthur Danto, Vitaly Komar, Alexander Melamid, Slava Tsukerman, Vadim Perelman, which she produced as absurd role-games.^[19] Caesar participated in the dissident movement in Russia, was invited by Marina Salye to make a speech at the Founding Conference of the Free Democratic Party of Russia during the 1991 Putsch, and produced the series of portraits of important dissidents, including portraits of Elena Bonner, Alexander Esenin-Volpin, Pavel Litvinov, and others, which showed these nonconformists in some nonconformist controversial situations.^[20] Critics emphasized that the uniqueness of Caesar’s creativity consists in the fact that, for the first time in the history of art, a woman – from a woman’s point of view ^[21] -- gives an assessment of such a wide scope of human ideas ^[22] via her art.^[23]

References[link]