Response to "Danto and Contemporary Art."

Response #15

In Lisa Diamond's blog, she talks about Arthur Danto's theory of art. Danto questions why contemporary art should actually be called art and what distinguishes an art object from the real thing that the artist used as a reference for the art object itself. Wartenberg writes, "How could a large painting consisting of nothing more than two large criss-crossing black brushstrokes on a white background be called art?" It is true; a lot of modern art is questionable, because it seems like anyone can create it. Like Lisa states, Wartenberg uses the example of Andy Warhol's Brillo Box. What makes the piece of artwork art, and the actual carton of soap pads not art? Why isn't the carton considered artwork if the painting is just a still life of that object? Lisa asks, "Danto claims that only someone who has studied art’s history has an “eye” for art. However, haven’t there been plenty of great artists in the past create great works of art without knowing the history?"

I do not agree with Danto. Anyone who is talented and has a passion for art can have an "eye" for it. He or she does not need to know the complete history of art to enjoy it or even to successfully create it. There are many artists that create art to express their emotions or communicate a message. They did not need to know any history to do so. The same goes for enjoying art. The topic came up in class whether someone must know the background of a work of art to actually like and understand it. Two examples were brought forth. One students said she listens to Japanese music and loves it even though she doesn't understand the words. Another student brought up U2's song "Sunday Bloody Sunday" which is about politics and war in Ireland. I love this song but I really had no idea what it was about. I just like how it sounds and the message behind it even though I didn't know exactly why such lyrics were written. Overall, I think knowing the history of art is helpful and great for expanding knowledge but it is not exactly necessary. Any artist can create a piece without knowing the history first. The same goes for enjoying art. Although knowing the in and out's of a piece of art may help understand it and increase its appreciation, anyone can still enjoy it even if he or she does not know everything about it.

My question to you is: Do you feel you need to know the history/background of a work of art before you can fully appreciate and enjoy it? Why or why not?

An Example of Contemporary Art: