Whose Theory Is It, Anyway?

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?

Perceptually Indistinguishable Counterparts

Danto confronts the problem of Perceptually Indistinguishable Counterparts. The strongest example of such, I think, was his reference to the "artwork" Rauschenberg's Bed, a work of art which is, quite literally, a bed spattered with paint.

At first glance, the work appears to merely be a bed that was mutilated in a tragic paint accident. But someone in the artworld, whatever that may be, identified it as a work of art. (Having viewed it myself, I cannot consider it a work of art; but that is another debate. For now, I shall operate under the assumption that it is, indeed, a work of "art.")

How are we to distinguish an average bed from Rauschenberg's Bed? Simply put: it is in the theory of art. Under some working definition of what "Art" is, Rauschenberg's Bed is included in the category of Art, separate and distinct from the general category of "beds."

In other words, these Perceptually Indistinguishable Counterparts are NOT CONCEPTUALLY Indistinguishable Counterparts. It is in the CONCEPTION or THEORY of Art that Art is separated from not Art.

I must admit: this concept makes sense. Having a conception or theory of art that distinguishes Art works from things that are not Art. So the question then becomes: What concept or theory of art should we use? Or must be grapple with that question on our own?