What is art? There are many different theories that attempt to define art in various ways, as well as theories that negate the possibility of a definition at all. Some people believe that art needs to evoke thoughts or feelings- that it is defined as art by its effects on the viewers. Others believe that art is defined by how its creator made it and what it was made to represent. In his work, “Art, Philosophy, and the Philosophy of Art,” Danto looks at the question, “What distinguishes art from the ordinary?” He discusses the problem that Andy Warhol’s famous sculpture, “Brillo Boxes” appears indiscernible from an actual ordinary pile of Brillo boxes- yet one is art and the other is not. We encounter a similar problem when we imagine that
…show more content…
More simply put, works of art have a meaning. Danto believes this theory solves the “Problem of Indiscernible Counterparts.” Warhol’s boxes have a meaning to them that ordinary boxes do not have. The same can be applied to the Leaning Tower of Pisa lookalike and the copy of Macbeth typed by monkeys. They are merely a pile of rocks and a sequence of random letters. Danto goes on to state that a definition of art must include more than simply the requirement of being representational, because not all representational things are art (Danto). Being representational is a necessary condition, but not a sufficient …show more content…
There are a few possible objections to this theory. One of these objections applies to copies of the original art, such as with books and movies. If a person is not reading the original copy of the book, we would still consider what they are reading to be art, even though this seems inconsistent with the assertion that art needs to be unique. In response to this idea, I believe that when we refer to a book or a movie as a work of art, we are referring to the content, rather than the physical entity, and therefore, when we refer to it as art, we are still correct, because the content itself is unique. Another possible objection would be the idea that artworks that are parodies or based on other works should be considered art, even though they might not be unique. In response to this, I think that those works of art are unique. The changes from the original artwork give them new meaning, and therefore
More simply put, works of art have a meaning. Danto believes this theory solves the “Problem of Indiscernible Counterparts.” Warhol’s boxes have a meaning to them that ordinary boxes do not have. The same can be applied to the Leaning Tower of Pisa lookalike and the copy of Macbeth typed by monkeys. They are merely a pile of rocks and a sequence of random letters. Danto goes on to state that a definition of art must include more than simply the requirement of being representational, because not all representational things are art (Danto). Being representational is a necessary condition, but not a sufficient …show more content…
There are a few possible objections to this theory. One of these objections applies to copies of the original art, such as with books and movies. If a person is not reading the original copy of the book, we would still consider what they are reading to be art, even though this seems inconsistent with the assertion that art needs to be unique. In response to this idea, I believe that when we refer to a book or a movie as a work of art, we are referring to the content, rather than the physical entity, and therefore, when we refer to it as art, we are still correct, because the content itself is unique. Another possible objection would be the idea that artworks that are parodies or based on other works should be considered art, even though they might not be unique. In response to this, I think that those works of art are unique. The changes from the original artwork give them new meaning, and therefore