Art! In What Sense?

Öz

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.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Danto,Hegel,Pop Art,Warhol

Kaynakça

1. 1. Arthur C. Danto, After the End of Art: Contemporary Art and the Pale of History, Princeton University Press, 1997.
2. 2. Arthur C. Danto, The Philosophical Disenfranchisement of Art, New York, Columbia University Press, 1986.
3. 3. Clement Greenberg, “Counter-Avant Garde” Art International 15 (May 1971).
4. 4. Clement Greenberg, “The Case for Abstract Art”, in Collected Essays and Criticism, Volume IV, The University of Chicago Press, 1959.
5. 5. Mark Rollins (ed.), Danto and His Critics, Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012.
6. 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. 7. G. W. F. Hegel, Aesthetics: Lectures on Fine Art, transl. T. M. Knox, Oxford, 1975.
8. 8. Peter Lamarque and Stein Haugom Olsen, (eds.), Aesthetics and the Philosophy of Art, Malden, MA: Blackwell Publication, 2004.