Danto appears to argue that Art only exists if there is a theory behind it. A person who lacks a theory of art will never look upon Art. However, he leaves one crucial question unanswered: whose theory of Art do we take?
My own thoughts would be thus: each individual should choose that theory of Art that seems correct to them, that theory which agrees with their own knowledge and reasoning. Absent any other indication by Danto, can we assume otherwise?
Of course, a theory need not be set in stone. Danto does point out towards the end of the article that the definition of Art can expand, that is, there can be applied a new predicate to what follows Art. "X is Art because F," or G, or H. And the abilty to add new letters to that, new identifiers of Art (and, by extension, the opposite of such, that is, F and Not F, G and Not G) is what allows the creation of new Art quite unlike anything that has been seen before. This would logically lead to a constantly expanding, evolving theory of Art. But, of course, we are still left with the question of what theory is the proper one.
What say you, my friends? Should we choose that definition, that theory of Art, that most makes sense to us? Or should it be something else, something Danto did not tell us, but may have believed in?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
No one can be told to choose one theory, because a theory is a non fact. Until something is proven fact, why should an individual be certain to believe it? Thus making everything an open ended discussion. Theres no reason to adhere to one theory, actually, majority of the time more than one theory fits the scenario better.
Post a Comment