Qué es el arte

by Arthur C. Danto

¿Qué es una obra de arte? El prestigioso filósofo y crítico del arte Arthur C. Danto nos plantea esta compleja y fundamental pregunta: ¿Qué es el arte?
A medio camino entre la monografía filosófica y la reflexión memorística, Danto pone en tela de juicio la creencia común que considera el arte como algo indefinible, y tras ello nos expone las propiedades que constituyen su sentido universal.
Según Danto una obra de arte se define siempre por dos criterios esenciales: el significado y la materialización. A estos añade un tercer criterio, el de la interpretación que cada espectador aporta a esa obra.
Con su particular estilo, claro y accesible, Danto combina la filosofía y el arte de épocas y géneros diversos. También menciona las contribuciones a la estética de filósofos como Descartes, Kant y Hegel, y las de artistas como Miguel Ángel y Poussin, pasando por Duchamp y Warhol, trazando con ello una clara panorámica de la universalidad de la producción estética.

Genres: Art, Philosophy, Nonfiction, Art History, Essays, Art Design, American

160 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2013

About the author

Arthur C. Danto was Johnsonian Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at Columbia University and art critic for The Nation. He was the author of numerous books, including Unnatural Wonders: Essays from the Gap Between Art and Life, After the End of Art, and Beyond the Brillo Box: The Visual Arts in Post-Historical Perspective.

Reviews

[صان · Rating 4 out of 5]

سوالاتم درباره "هنر" بودنِ هنرهای معاصر رو جواب داد. شِکفتم

متن گاهی سنگین میشد اما با چندبار خوندن بالاخره فهمیده میشد.

[Talie · Rating 3 out of 5]

روزی روزگاری دانتو در گالری استیبل جعبه‌های بریلوی اندی وارهول را دید و انقلابی در او به وجود آمد. طوری که خواب جعبه‌های اندی را می‌دید، به هر کس که می‌رسید درباره‌شان حرف می‌زد و هر مقاله‌ای که می‌نوشت بهشان ارجاع می داد. فکر می‌کرد می‌تواند  هنر را تعریف کند. او کانت و هگل خواند( و قسمت‌هایی از کانت را می‌خواند که هیچ کس با دقت نمی‌خواند) و به این فکر می‌کرد که چرا جعبه‌های بریلوی اندی در گالری استیبل هنر است ولی همین جعبه‌ها در سوپر مارکت هنر نیست. او خواند و خواند و فکر کرد و فکر کرد و بالاخره فهمید که بعله، هنر " معنای مجسم" است. ولی او که اینقدر باهوش بود و کانت می‌خواند نمی‌توانست بفهمد که تعریفش از هنر گنگ و مبهم و ناقص است. آیا آن جعبه‌های درون سوپرمارکت معنای مجسمی نبودند؟ چرا آن پاروی برف روبی که دوشان از مغازه خرید و اسمش را "پیشاپیش بازوی شکسته" گذاشت معنای مجسم بود و بقیه پاروهای برف روبی معنای مجسم نیستند؟ بالاخره این همه معنا هست که این پاروها مجسم می‌کنند. اما این ها که هنر نیستند. پس هنر چیست؟ اگر هم هنر هستند پس همه چی هنر است.

[Steven R. Kraaijeveld · Rating 3 out of 5]

"In my first book on the philosophy of art I thought that works of art are about something, and I decided that works of art accordingly have meaning. We infer meanings, or grasp meanings, but meanings are not at all material. I then thought that, unlike sentences with subjects and predicates, the meanings are embodied in the object that had them. I then declared that works of art are embodied meanings. [...] The art object embodies the meaning, or partially embodies it. [...] The artwork is a material object, some of whose properties belong to the meaning, and some of which do not. What the viewer must do is interpret the meaning-bearing properties in such a way as to grasp the intended meaning they embody." (37-38)

[Peter Tillman · Rating 1 out of 5]

A near-worthless series of essays on art by a dead Columbia philosopher. Danto appears to embody pretty much all that I dislike about New England classics professors, who use a lot of words to say nothing in particular. Skimmed only, but I think I gave Danto a fair chance. Yuck. Not for me!

[Murat Dural · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Sanat Nedir?" Arthur C. Danto'nun farklı sanatları felsefi anlamda bir araya getirip kendi tecrübe ve görgüsünden yola çıkarak yazdığı bir günce, bir değerlendirme. Gayet sade yazılmış, akademikten çok doğal, hayatın içinden bir anlatımla okura ulaşıyor. Şaşırtıcı, besleyici çok şey buldum. Tavsiyem edebiyat, güzel sanatlar ve felsefe ekseninde basit okumalar yaptıktan sonra rahatlıkla alınıp okunabilecek bir kitap.

[Roderick Mcgillis · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good introduction to a discussion of art, what art is, its ontological status. I especially enjoyed Danto's discussion of Warhol and James Harvey, brillo boxes and Brillo Box, although he might have explored the question of meaning here in greater detail. Commercial Art means, but how does such meaning differ from the meaning of so-called High Art? And just how many kinds of art might we identify, and how do they connect to meaning? And why, if meaning must be "embodied," does Formalism fail to satisfy as an approach to art? Perhaps my difficulty here stems from my own inability to grasp philosophical discourse.I do, however, find the discussions stimulating. The chapter on restoration is provocative. The question of intention pokes its head here, but again Danto does not delve into this question. For the record, he seems to have found the restored Sistine ceiling acceptable despite his reluctance to view it. His discussion moves me to contemplate all those reproductions of master works in books, and now on the internet. What do we see when we view a D. G. Rossetti online or in a printed catalogue? How should we judge art we have only seen reproduced? At one time, artists (William Blake, for example) would have seen much of what influenced him in reproduction only. Is this philosophically significant? Finally, I can say that Danto offers a cogent analysis of what art is. Aesthetics be damned. Well, not really, but Fountain and its creator Mr. Mutt succeeded in putting aesthetics in its place.

[Maxwell Foley · Rating 1 out of 5]

I picked up this book because I felt like I needed to familiarize myself more with the institutional discourse surrounding the arts rather than just entirely relying on my own idiosyncratic methods of analysis. This book, being very short and having a title which promises a sufficiently broad scope, was a good candidate. As it turns out, I think I may have some reason to prefer my own subjective opinions to that which passes for expertise and intellectual sophistication, at least in this specific case.

In the first chapter, Danto bemoans the fact that his "fellow philosophers" believe that the category of "art" is so vague that there is no use coming up with a definition of it. He asserts that philosophers only believe art is an open-ended category because they don't really understand the arts the way an art critic would. A few pages later, Danto gives us his definition of a work of art - "meaning embodied in an object".

This definition, upon a few seconds' reflection, reveals itself to be very insufficient, for the obvious reason that not all art is a physical object. In fact, I think the majority of art is not embedded in a physical object - theater, music, film, poetry. How can Danto not realize this? The fact that he thinks of "art" as exclusively involving physical objects reveals an absurd bias towards the institution of the modern gallery, totally blind to any creative expressions which exist outside it, even in, say, the symphony hall two doors down. This would be bad enough if it weren't for the fact that this definition comes about ten pages after a lengthy discussion of John Cage's 4'33", a work of art that is entirely defined its by lack of existence, material or otherwise.

So that's pretty silly. Moving onto the second chapter, we find a discussion of the recent cleaning of the Sistine Chapel ceiling, which Danto comes out as vigorously opposed to. This is because, in his mind, part of the "meaning" embodied in the ceiling is that it is dirty, and therefore to clean the ceiling would destroy the artwork entirely. The dirt, Danto asserts, represents something along the lines of Plato's allegory of the cave, regarding how humanity can see glimpses of transcendent meaning even while living in a debased material plane. The reason Danto believes this is because he saw a picture of the ceiling after it had been cleaned and thought the figures looked crude and garish. Since Michelangelo was a great artist, he must not have intended it to look this way. In fact, this "destruction" of a work of art upset Danto so much that he refused to visit the Sistine Chapel ever again, on principle.

Does Danto sincerely believe, despite any historical evidence to point to, that somehow Michelangelo intended the ceiling to become dirty over time and never again cleaned, in order to create some gnostic allegory utterly central to the work? I certainly hope not. And as if that wasn't ludicrous enough, he wraps up the discussion of the Sistine Chapel by bringing up the metaphysical notions embedded in the relative flaccidity of the various penises of the figures, as well as the Platonic allegory implied in the homosexual overtones in the way the female figures are rendered.

At this point, the book is about halfway over. There are four more short chapters and these actually turn out to be decent, albeit a bit rambling. So it wasn't entirely worthless, but all the arguments asserted in first half of this book were just so insultingly stupid that I really feel compelled to mark it with the single star of shame.

[Parisa Pezeshkpour · Rating 4 out of 5]

از اون کتاب‌هایی بود که میدونم بعدا حتما بهش برمیگردم.
اینکه هنر و مخصوصا هنر معاصر (مثلا آثار اندی وارهول و مارسل دوشان که کتاب خیلی روشون تمرکز میکنه) چرا هنر حساب میشن، سوالیه که خیلی وقت‌ها باهاش مواجه شدم و رویکرد دانتو به این موضوع، دغدغه‌ش و نوع نوشتارش رو خیلی دوست داشتم.
تک‌تک فصل‌های کتاب خیلی جالبن. سوال‌هایی که مطرح میشن و بحث هایی که در ادامش میاد واقعا جالبن. مثلا بخش هایی که درباره‌ی مرمت و بدنمندی حرف میزد واقعا 10/10.
هرچند که یه ذره پراکنده به نظرم میومد و یه جاهایی پیوستگی مطالب رو گم میکردم. که البته این چیزی از ارزش‌های کتاب کم نمیکنه :)) (در واقع خودش هم توضیح میده که بعضی فصل‌ها رو جدا نوشته و بعدا جمعشون کرده توی این کتاب.)
خلاصه اینکه من واقعا کیف کردم از خوندنش و فکر کردن بهش.

[Spyros Passas · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very economical, dense and compact book attempting to answer a notoriously difficult question. Danto starts by recapping the most common approaches in defining art (art as imitation, as aesthetic value, even as something that cannot -and does not need to- be defined), before proposing his own approach (Art as embodied meaning). After explaining his theory, he elaborates on how this affects the artwork restoration, the body in philosophy of art, how it distorts Kantian definitions and finally, what does this mean for the future of aesthetics, since aesthetics is not a defining element of Art. Very interesting read and I'm definitely going to read Danto's "Transfiguration of the Commonplace" that precedes this work. It is very useful to have a visual reference of the artworks analyzed in the book and, of course, read it with an open mind, ready to discover new questions and not find magical answers (which is not the purpose of this work).

[Andrew]

This is a book that promises a lot in its title, but does it deliver?

Danto is great at storytelling, but a bit shit at cohesive theses. So what we get is a whole lot of very entertaining stories, but not much in the way of explaining his central concept vis-à-vis meaning, which seems awfully easy to poke holes in. Is this fun to read? Yes. Does this have philosophical value? Questionable.

[thaís bambozzi · Rating 4 out of 5]

resumidamente, a resposta ao título é: obras de arte são significados incorporados. fim. gosto de danto, mas algumas ideias são datadas demais, não tem jeito.

[Roberto · Rating 4 out of 5]

Un sogno a occhi aperti

Il saggio di Bonami "Lo potevo fare anch'io" mi ha lasciato parecchi interrogativi, a causa dell'approssimazione con cui l'autore ha approcciato l'argomento dell'arte. Dopo accurata ricerca mi sono procurato quindi questo libro di Arthur Coleman Danto, uno dei più importanti filosofi e critici d'arte.

Le domande a cui Danto prova a dare risposta sono diverse. Provo ad elencarle:

1) Che cosa hanno in comune la Gioconda di Leonardo, l'orinatoio di Duchamp, la Merda d'artista di Manzoni, Guernica di Picasso e le scatole con le spugne abrasive Brillo di Wahrol? In altre parole l'arte, nel tempo, ha proprietà comuni?
2) Cosa ci permette di stabilire se, dati due oggetti, uno è ordinario mentre l'altro è un'opera d'arte?
3) L'arte deve essere associata necessariamente al concetto di "bello"?

Queste domande potrebbero concentrarsi tutte logicamente in una sola: cos'è, filosoficamente parlando, l'arte?

Dunque, sintetizzando, cosa ho capito dalla lettura?

Innanzitutto, se diciamo che l'arte è unica, è necessario che la definizione contenga caratteristiche che siano comuni a tutte le opere di tutte le epoche. Quindi bisogna trovare qualcosa che leghi la Monna Lisa all'orinatoio (no, Monna Lisa non era un Trans)

Questa proprietà non può essere né la bellezza né la somiglianza con una cosa. Infatti possiamo anche dire che la Gioconda sia bella, ma certo non possiamo dire altrettanto per l'"operato" di Manzoni. Se possiamo dire che La Monna Lisa è somigliante all'originale, lo stesso non possiamo dire per Guernica.

Kant diceva che "un'opera può anche essere bella, per quanto concerne il gusto, ma carente per quanto riguarda lo spirito". E Duchamp affermava che "l'arte poteva esistere in sé e che la sua importanza consisteva nell'estraneità a distinzioni estetiche, in un'epoca in cui era opinione diffusa che la sua ragion d'essere fosse proprio il piacere estetico."

Veniamo quindi al compendio finale. Cosa è l'arte?

"Una cosa è un'opera d'arte quando ha un significato e quando quel significato prende corpo nell'opera, il che in genere significa che prende corpo nell'oggetto in cui consiste materialmente l'opera d'arte. In breve, quindi le opere d'arte sono significati che prendono corpo."

In pratica, ancora meglio: "Sono le caratteristiche non visibili che consentono ad un oggetto di diventare un'opera d'arte". E questo chiude il cerchio.

Quindi non ha importanza se una cosa sia bella, brutta, storta, puzzolente, oscena, approssimativa, abbozzata, grezza. E' arte se dà corpo ad un significato. Un significato che, evidentemente, deve essere originale.

La domanda che scatta però è: ma qual è il significato dell'orinatoio?

Quando Duchamp nel 1917 presenta l'orinatoio, è la prima volta che un'opera viene scelta, non creata e questo elimina i tradizionali confini tra artistico ed extrartistico, tra estetico ed extraestetico. In sostanza il significato dell'orinatorio di Duchamp e della merda di Manzoni è l'idea. L'idea innovativa.

"Artistica, geniale, liberatoria, sovversiva, fu l’idea, e questo basterebbe, e bastò, a farlo diventare arte"

Ma non basta ancora. Danto arricchisce la sua definizione di arte con un'altra condizione: l’opera d’arte dev’essere “come un sogno a occhi aperti”.
Merda e orinatoio sono sogni? Sì, lo sono. Perché dirompenti sono state le idee ad essi associate.

Il saggio, per me, è molto molto interessante, specie il primo capitolo. Danto è logico, lineare, preparato, chiaro. Esattamente quanto Bonami è pressapochista e caciarone. Uno dei rari libri d'arte che mi ha fatto riflettere.

[verbava · Rating 4 out of 5]

коли ми роздивляємося мистецькі твори дев'ятнадцятого століття й раніше, платонівська думка про мистецтво як наслідування працює доволі непогано. двадцяте, звісно, приносить трохи проблем, але двадцяте століття взагалі багато всього поламало, не тільки струнку категоризацію того, де мистецтво, а де не дуже.
артур данто пропонує визначення, яке за стислістю мало поступається платонівському – у платона одне слово, в данто два: мистецтво – це втілене значення. і ця красива теза не тільки робить простір для всіляких курта швіттерса й енді воргола, а й наштовхує на цікаві думки, наприклад, про естетику як засіб передачі значень – але тільки один із можливих засобів.

[Kotryna · Rating 3 out of 5]

Though well written, the book seemed a bit random to me - someone who is interested in art history & theory, but was not aware of every theme developed in the book. It lacks a game of argument & contra-argument, and seemed a bit one-sided, more like a personal opinion rather than academic or analytic text. Without a wider context, I experienced the book as a middle of the conversation without knowing how it began or ended.

Made me google a lot, which is never a bad thing. Good reference for future readings.

[Artù · Rating 3 out of 5]

Che cos’è l’arte?
Potrebbe, e forse è, una domanda aperta.
In questo saggio il critico Arthur C. Danto prova a dare risposta a questo quesito, cercando di trovare la radice che di un’opera fa un’opera d’arte.
Si parte dal pensiero di Platone, secondo cui l’arte figurativa è “mimesi” ossia riproduzione del reale. Per Platone, intento a conoscere la realtà delle cose, la mimesi viene vista in termine negativi se non dispregiativi, essendo solo una rappresentazione di ciò che appare e quanto di più lontano dall’essenza delle cose. Bisogna dire che questa definizione tiene banco per millenni e la rappresentazione retinica del reale è stata sempre un punto centrale dell’arte figurativa.
Ma poi succede qualcosa, nel Settecento viene coniato il termino estetica, e le immagini vengono anche considerate anche per il piacere che sono in grado di suscitare, fino alla nascita della fotografia che per alcuni artisti significa la morte della pittura mimetica.
Fortunatamente grazie l’arte astratta, il cubismo e le avanguardie l’uomo è stato capace di reinventare la pittura, ma cosa rimane?
Ebbene secondo Danto l’unico elemento comune ad ogni opera d’arte, che è una condizione necessaria ma mai sufficiente, è la capacità di dare corpo ad un significato. Dove per dare corpo si intende la capacità dell’artista di trasformare e maneggiare la materia e con significato si intende un qualsiasi concetto o emozione.
Per me l’arte è la capacità di cristallizzare tramite la materia un sentimento, un emozione, un pensiero o un concetto, quindi sono d’accordo col pensiero del critico.
Il testo si conclude poi con alcune riflessione sul campo dell’estetica.
Voi che ne pensate?

[Adam Feng · Rating 4 out of 5]

When I found this book for sale at the Whitney, I was delighted to discover that they did indeed carry books about Aesthetics and the Philosophy of Art. This is a rather short read, only about 150 pages or so, but one that I found to be incredibly informative and elucidating. Reading Danto is the closest I have gotten to the domain of art history, yet I am sure there will be more to come…

4.5/5

[Jeffrey · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is the key and is directly taken from Langer's definition of denotation and connotation in her book Philosophy in a New Key:

"Warhol's Box denotes the Brillo boxes. It embodies the latter in that the two look the same. Art always stands at a distance from reality. Thus two Brillo boxes don't denote one another."

[Laura · Rating 4 out of 5]

3'5* Esperaba algo diferente de este ensayo, pero muy interesante

[Elliot Chalom · Rating 2 out of 5]

DNF. Chapter one was somewhat what I expected the book to be about. Gave up on chapter 2 midway through and same for chapter 3. Skimmed the rest and realized this wasn't what I was looking for. I won't blame Danto - maybe it's too advanced given my lack of art education. I was hoping this book would be a lot more accessible and less abstract.

[Chinchilla_clouds · Rating 1 out of 5]

Περισσότερο ένα δοκίμιο εγωκεντρισμού, όπου ο συγγραφέας παραθέτει τι έχει γράψει ανά καιρούς, μαζί με γενικόλογες σκέψεις/απόψεις. Ελάχιστα είναι τα σημεία όπου γίνεται πιο συγκεκριμένος - χωρίς ιδιαίτερα πολλά επιχειρήματα.

[Isaac Alejandro · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excelente ensayo que trata de darle una respuesta a la gran pregunta de "que es el arte?" Usando como base la filosofía y la historia del arte el autor nos plantea nuevos paradigmas para poder tener un juicio critico sobre las obras de arte antiguas, contemporáneas y futuras, me gustó mucho como deja en claro el trabajo de artistas como Duchamp y Warhol y los juicios estéticos que saca de Kant y hegel, lectura imprescindible para conocer más a fondo lo que es la estética, la Belleza y el arte.

[Kaarel Aadli · Rating 4 out of 5]

Kohe ütleks, et oli mõnus. Aga midagi ikkagi... kuidagi... Ütleme, et ajaviitefilosoofiaks napilt liiga kuiv? Tunnistan hea meelega, et teose täielikumaks nautimiseks tuleks veel hulga paremini nii kunsti- kui filosoofiaajalooga kursis olla, sest neid näiteid ja nimesid siin jagub. Seega peatse jällenägemiseni!

[Nú Baltrons]

"¿Dónde están los límites del arte? Si cualquier cosa puede ser arte, ¿qué distingue el arte de cualquier otra cosa? Nos queda el pequeño consuelo de que el hecho de que cualquier cosa pueda convertirse en arte no significa que todo sea arte. Duchamp logró tirar por tierra casi toda la historia de la estética, desde Platón hasta nuestros días"

[Helia Naseri · Rating 3 out of 5]

برخی از فصول رو به شدت دوست داشتم و برخی رو نه خیلی. اما کلا کتاب برام آورده زیاد داشت، چیزهایی که شاید قبلا فکر کرده بودم بهشون و جوابی براش نداشتم، همینطور چیز��ایی که اصلا بهشون فکر نکرده بودم.

[Paula · Rating 1 out of 5]

1,5⭐️
no sabía que el autor era un filósofo y que por ello no iba a entender la mitad del libro, además se me ha hecho un poco pesado :|

[Santiago García · Rating 3 out of 5]

Esperaba mucho más de este libro. El autor no elabora en profundidad las ideas que presenta y se pierde en anécdotas insustanciales. 6/10

[Camila Pedraza · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wonderful and enchanting.


Anything CAN be art, although not everything IS art.
Art is:
1) Meaning and 2) embodiement --- embodied meaning--- the meaning is intricately related to its material object. Thus the relationship to reality is internal. Its meaning must be interpreted. Its invisible (rather than visible) properties are what makes something art. It exists to be seen and understood as art. It is self-conscious
3) Wakeful dreams --- not necessarily true but possible. Art always stands AT A DISTANCE from reality. It is once removed (like the Brillo Box). Art and reality have different embodiments and different meanings. (The Brillo carton denotes the Brillo product (it is about Brillo). The Brillo Box by Warhol denotes the Brillo carton, and thus life, and thus aesthetics at the time and thus popular culture. Even though they LOOK the same, they are different--- invisible differences.)
4) Cognitive. The artistic genius is capable of embodying/conveying ideas in a sensory medium (ideas we grasp through the senses/sensory experience rather than just the mind). And aesthetics is one of the ways art achieves its goals. Art is Aesthetical Ideas: ideas beyond the bounds of experience conveyed through the elements of experience. Art carries us beyond experience. It opens us to new ideas. Art is transformative. It has power. It is the work of genius and spirit.
If not aesthetical, then art has the power of meaning and the possibility of truth
5) Art Historical - it is tied to a time, a place, a culture and a style. It requires a bit of theory and a bit of criticism and specially a bit of knowledge to be understood. It is not a one way street only dependent on the artist. It needs a reader. It needs interpretation in order to become art. We are meaning-makers.

[Melika Khoshnezhad · Rating 4 out of 5]

دانتو در این کتاب به دنبال تعریف هنره و علی‌رغم این‌که در هنر معاصر بیش از پیش با باز بودن تعریف هنر مواجه می‌شیم، همچنان معتقده اگه هنر رو تعریف نکنیم هیچ معیاری برای تمیز دادن هنر از ناهنر نخواهیم داشت. اثری که به شدت درگیرش کرده از اول تا آخر کتاب جعبه‌های بریلوی اندی وارهوله و می‌خواد ببینه چیه که باعث می‌شه این جعبه‌ها رو هنر بدونیم.
یه فصل خیلی خیلی خوبی داره که من از تمام کتاب بیشتر دوستش داشتم درباره‌ی مرمت نقاشی‌های میکل‌آنژ روی سقف سیستین و تلاشی که به اسم غبارروبی باعث شد رنگ‌ نقاشی‌ها بسیار درخشان و شاد بشن. به نظر دانتو اگه هدف میکل‌آنژ این بوده که از قصد نقاشی‌ها رو تیره بکشه و بیشتر شبیه طراحی باشن واسه این‌که نشون بده تمام این فیگورها در حال تقلا برای بیرون اومدن از تاریکی و رفتن به سوی نورن، با این مرمت درواقع اثر هنری میکل‌آنژ برای همیشه خراب شده.
اما دانتو نمی‌تونه فراتر از این بره که برخی ویژگی‌ها هست که بین آثار هنری مشترکه، اما صرف داشتن اون ویژگی باعث نمی‌شه چیزی اثر هنری محسوب بشه و مهم‌ترین ویژگی به‌نظرش معناداریه و به نظرش هنر تجسم معناست. در نهایت می‌شه گفت آثار هنری به نظر دانتو همه معنادارن اما هر چیز معناداری هنر نیست. جدای این، سعی می‌کنه نشون بده که برای همیشه زیباشناسی از هنر جدا شده و دیگه لزوماً آثار هنری نباید لزوماً زیبا باشن.

[Mary Overton]

Danto's dense, delightful book was, for me, a 4 month reading experience and crash course in art history. Every other page refers to an artist or philosopher, and I’d stop to look up the person, learn about him/her (alas, mostly him), see the art or read a bit of the writing.

My absolutely favorite newly discovered artist is Charles Simonds, who “made little clay dwellings in the cracks of building in what was going to be SoHo - which he insisted were occupied by ‘Little People.’” (34-5) Ever since childhood, I have looked for and longed to find Little People! Unfortunately I had to grown up and let go of the literal quest, but Simonds' work gives me secret hope. Maybe someday …

For the here and now, Danto gave me plenty to think about with his philosophical definition, that "works of art are embodied meaning." (37)

[The Art Book Review · Rating 4 out of 5]

" We should not be content with making little amendments and comments on beauty and taste. Visual artists now have the opportunity to use any medium possible to weigh in on any subject and the only criteria is the depth and clarity by which that “embodied meaning,” as Danto calls it, reveals itself. This is liberating and scary. Artists are required to be better and viewers are required to be smarter."

--Ed Schad on Arthur C. Danto's "What Art Is" from Yale University Press

Read the full review here:
http://theartbookreview.org/2013/06/2...