Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite
Year 2017, , 156 - 163, 30.09.2017
https://doi.org/10.25295/fsecon.334861

Abstract

References

  • 1. Arthur C. Danto, After the End of Art: Contemporary Art and the Pale of History, Princeton University Press, 1997.
  • 2. Arthur C. Danto, The Philosophical Disenfranchisement of Art, New York, Columbia University Press, 1986.
  • 3. Clement Greenberg, “Counter-Avant Garde” Art International 15 (May 1971).
  • 4. Clement Greenberg, “The Case for Abstract Art”, in Collected Essays and Criticism, Volume IV, The University of Chicago Press, 1959.
  • 5. Mark Rollins (ed.), Danto and His Critics, Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012.
  • 6. Noel Carroll, “Danto’s New Definition of Art and the Problem of Art Theories” in British Journal of Aesthetics, Vol. 37, No. 4, 1997.
  • 7. G. W. F. Hegel, Aesthetics: Lectures on Fine Art, transl. T. M. Knox, Oxford, 1975.
  • 8. Peter Lamarque and Stein Haugom Olsen, (eds.), Aesthetics and the Philosophy of Art, Malden, MA: Blackwell Publication, 2004.

Art! In What Sense?

Year 2017, , 156 - 163, 30.09.2017
https://doi.org/10.25295/fsecon.334861

Abstract

This paper is a critique of the conception of
art which is mainly based on Arthur Danto’s definition of art via Hegelian aesthetics.
In 1964, when Danto encountered with Andy Warhol’s Brillo Box a renewed era
for the definition of art has come. For Hegel one of the most crucial criteria for
art-work is its indispensible adequacy between content and presentation. Although
Danto as a philosopher is so much Hegelian by the time of modern art there
emerges a historical shift within art and this article tries to reveal how Danto
departs from Hegel through the philosophical question of what makes any work an
art-work. When there renders no ‘bodily’ distinction between content and
presentation, there emerges an essential question: According to what one of the Brillo boxes inside a grocery
store is just an ordinary box while the other one is such a precious artwork in
Soho Gallery.

References

  • 1. Arthur C. Danto, After the End of Art: Contemporary Art and the Pale of History, Princeton University Press, 1997.
  • 2. Arthur C. Danto, The Philosophical Disenfranchisement of Art, New York, Columbia University Press, 1986.
  • 3. Clement Greenberg, “Counter-Avant Garde” Art International 15 (May 1971).
  • 4. Clement Greenberg, “The Case for Abstract Art”, in Collected Essays and Criticism, Volume IV, The University of Chicago Press, 1959.
  • 5. Mark Rollins (ed.), Danto and His Critics, Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012.
  • 6. Noel Carroll, “Danto’s New Definition of Art and the Problem of Art Theories” in British Journal of Aesthetics, Vol. 37, No. 4, 1997.
  • 7. G. W. F. Hegel, Aesthetics: Lectures on Fine Art, transl. T. M. Knox, Oxford, 1975.
  • 8. Peter Lamarque and Stein Haugom Olsen, (eds.), Aesthetics and the Philosophy of Art, Malden, MA: Blackwell Publication, 2004.
There are 8 citations in total.

Details

Subjects Business Administration
Journal Section Articles
Authors

Burçak İsmet Özsoy

Publication Date September 30, 2017
Published in Issue Year 2017

Cite

APA İsmet Özsoy, B. (2017). Art! In What Sense?. Fiscaoeconomia, 1(3), 156-163. https://doi.org/10.25295/fsecon.334861

 Fiscaoeconomia is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.