A closer look at Danto's account of art and perception

British Journal of Aesthetics

Volumn 40, Issue 3, 2000, Pages 326-339

  Margolis, Joseph ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 63149113397     PISSN: 00070904     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/bjaesthetics/40.3.326     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. See Arthur C. Danto, 'Indiscernibility and Perception: A Reply to Joseph Margolis', British Journal of Aesthetics, 39 (1999), pp. 321-329.
2. See Joseph Margolis, 'Farewell to Danto and Goodman', British Journal of Aesthetics, 38 (1998), pp. 353-374.
3. See Arthur C. Danto, 'The Art World Revisited: Comedies of Similarity', in Beyond the Brillo Box: The Visual Arts in Post-Historical Perspective (New York: Farrar Straus Giroux, 1992). Danto actually says, speaking of Brillo Box: 'an indiscernible object could not have been an artwork at any earlier moment' (pp. 37-38). He means (as he says) that his own theory (the 'Artworld' paper) was a response to that fact - and Warhol's innovation. But then he must surely see that it could not generate a sufficiently broad theory of art.
4. Danto, 'Indiscernibility and Perception', p. 324.
5. See Arthur C. Danto, 'Responses and Replies', in Mark Rollins (ed.), Danto and His Critics (Oxford: Blackwell, 1993), p. 201.
6. For a general impression of the difficulties that must be addressed, see Joseph Margolis, What, After All, Is a Work of Art? Lectures on the Philosophy of Art (University Park: Pennsylvania State U.P., 1999), ch. 3.
7. See, for instance, Georg Lukács, The Historical Novel, trans. Hannah and Stanley Mitchell (Boston, MA: Beacon, 1963), ch. 1. Lukács distinguishes, in effect, between Scott's own ideological intentions and the power of his art to carry him beyond those limitations (e.g. p. 54) and, also, the implications of the notion of 'necessary anachronism' which Goethe and Hegel share (even if in somewhat different ways [p. 61]).
8. See Arthur C. Danto, The Transfiguration of the Commonplace: A Philosophy of Art (Cambridge: Harvard U.P., 1981).
9. This is an important implication of the theory offered in Arthur C. Danto, 'The Artworld', Journal of Philosophy, XLI (1964).
10. I should point out that this is also to agree with the methodological view expressed in Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality, vol. 1, trans. Robert Hurley (New York: Pantheon, 1978), for instance, Part III.
11. See, also, Arthur C. Danto, Philosophizing Art: Selected Essays (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999). Introduction.
12. Danto, 'Indiscernibility and Description', p. 323.
13. See Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd edn enlarged (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970), section X;
14. and Wilfrid Sellars, 'Phenomenalism', in Science, Perception and Reality (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1963), e.g. p. 103.