What do you think?
Rate this book
What Art Is
What is it to be a work of art? Renowned author and critic Arthur C. Danto addresses this fundamental, complex question. Part philosophical monograph and part memoiristic meditation, What Art Is challenges the popular interpretation that art is an indefinable concept, instead bringing to light the properties that constitute universal meaning. Danto argues that despite varied approaches, a work of art is always defined by two essential meaning and embodiment, as well as one additional criterion contributed by the interpretation. Danto crafts his argument in an accessible manner that engages with both philosophy and art across genres and eras, beginning with Plato’s definition of art in The Republic , and continuing through the progress of art as a series of discoveries, including such innovations as perspective, chiaroscuro, and physiognomy. Danto concludes with a fascinating discussion of Andy Warhol’s famous shipping cartons, which are visually indistinguishable from the everyday objects they represent. Throughout, Danto considers the contributions of philosophers including Descartes, Kant, and Hegel, and artists from Michelangelo and Poussin to Duchamp and Warhol, in this far-reaching examination of the interconnectivity and universality of aesthetic production.
192 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2013
About the author
Arthur C. Danto
157 books153 followersArthur C. Danto was Johnsonian Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at Columbia University and art critic for The Nation. He was the author of numerous books, including Unnatural Wonders: Essays from the Gap Between Art and Life, After the End of Art, and Beyond the Brillo Box: The Visual Arts in Post-Historical Perspective.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 84 reviews
August 26, 2016
سوالاتم درباره "هنر" بودنِ هنرهای معاصر رو جواب داد. شِکفتم
متن گاهی سنگین میشد اما با چندبار خوندن بالاخره فهمیده میشد.
متن گاهی سنگین میشد اما با چندبار خوندن بالاخره فهمیده میشد.
June 26, 2023
روزی روزگاری دانتو در گالری استیبل جعبه‌های بریلوی اندی وارهول را دید و انقلابی در او به وجود آمد. طوری که خواب جعبه‌های اندی را می‌دید، به هر کس که می‌رسید درباره‌شان حرف میزد و هر مقاله‌ای که می‌نوشت بهشان ارجاع می داد. فکر می‌کرد می‌تواند هنر را تعریف کند. او کانت و هگل خواند( و قسمت‌هایی از کانت را می‌خواند که هیچ کس با دقت نمی‌خواند) و به این فکر می‌کرد که چرا جعبه‌های بریلوی اندی در گالری استیبل هنر است ولی همین جعبه‌ها در سوپر مارکت هنر نیست. او خواند و خواند و فکر کرد و فکر کرد و بالاخره فهمید که بعله، هنر " معنای مجسم" است. ولی او که اینقدر باهوش بود و کانت می‌خواند نمی‌توانست بفهمد که تعریفش از هنر گنگ و مبهم و ناقص است. آیا آن جعبه‌های درون سوپرمارکت معنای مجسمی نبودند؟ چرا آن پاروی برف روبی که دوشان از مغازه خرید و اسمش را "پیشاپیش بازوی شکسته" گذاشت معنای مجسم بود و بقیه پاروهای برف روبی معنای مجسم نیستند؟ بالاخره این همه معنا هست که این پاروها مجسم می‌کنند. اما این ها که هنر نیستند. پس هنر چیست؟ اگر هم هنر هستند پس همه چی هنر است.
November 17, 2018
"In my first book on the philosophy of art I thought that works of art are about something, and I decided that works of art accordingly have meaning. We infer meanings, or grasp meanings, but meanings are not at all material. I then thought that, unlike sentences with subjects and predicates, the meanings are embodied in the object that had them. I then declared that works of art are embodied meanings. [...] The art object embodies the meaning, or partially embodies it. [...] The artwork is a material object, some of whose properties belong to the meaning, and some of which do not. What the viewer must do is interpret the meaning-bearing properties in such a way as to grasp the intended meaning they embody." (37-38)
October 15, 2019
A near-worthless series of essays on art by a dead Columbia philosopher. Danto appears to embody pretty much all that I dislike about New England classics professors, who use a lot of words to say nothing in particular. Skimmed only, but I think I gave Danto a fair chance. Yuck. Not for me!
January 27, 2023
"Sanat Nedir?" Arthur C. Danto'nun farklı sanatları felsefi anlamda bir araya getirip kendi tecrübe ve görgüsünden yola çıkarak yazdığı bir günce, bir değerlendirme. Gayet sade yazılmış, akademikten çok doğal, hayatın içinden bir anlatımla okura ulaşıyor. Şaşırtıcı, besleyici çok şey buldum. Tavsiyem edebiyat, güzel sanatlar ve felsefe ekseninde basit okumalar yaptıktan sonra rahatlıkla alınıp okunabilecek bir kitap.
March 30, 2015
A good introduction to a discussion of art, what art is, its ontological status. I especially enjoyed Danto's discussion of Warhol and James Harvey, brillo boxes and Brillo Box, although he might have explored the question of meaning here in greater detail. Commercial Art means, but how does such meaning differ from the meaning of so-called High Art? And just how many kinds of art might we identify, and how do they connect to meaning? And why, if meaning must be "embodied," does Formalism fail to satisfy as an approach to art? Perhaps my difficulty here stems from my own inability to grasp philosophical discourse.I do, however, find the discussions stimulating. The chapter on restoration is provocative. The question of intention pokes its head here, but again Danto does not delve into this question. For the record, he seems to have found the restored Sistine ceiling acceptable despite his reluctance to view it. His discussion moves me to contemplate all those reproductions of master works in books, and now on the internet. What do we see when we view a D. G. Rossetti online or in a printed catalogue? How should we judge art we have only seen reproduced? At one time, artists (William Blake, for example) would have seen much of what influenced him in reproduction only. Is this philosophically significant? Finally, I can say that Danto offers a cogent analysis of what art is. Aesthetics be damned. Well, not really, but Fountain and its creator Mr. Mutt succeeded in putting aesthetics in its place.
December 14, 2016
I picked up this book because I felt like I needed to familiarize myself more with the institutional discourse surrounding the arts rather than just entirely relying on my own idiosyncratic methods of analysis. This book, being very short and having a title which promises a sufficiently broad scope, was a good candidate. As it turns out, I think I may have some reason to prefer my own subjective opinions to that which passes for expertise and intellectual sophistication, at least in this specific case.
In the first chapter, Danto bemoans the fact that his "fellow philosophers" believe that the category of "art" is so vague that there is no use coming up with a definition of it. He asserts that philosophers only believe art is an open-ended category because they don't really understand the arts the way an art critic would. A few pages later, Danto gives us his definition of a work of art - "meaning embodied in an object".
This definition, upon a few seconds' reflection, reveals itself to be very insufficient, for the obvious reason that not all art is a physical object. In fact, I think the majority of art is not embedded in a physical object - theater, music, film, poetry. How can Danto not realize this? The fact that he thinks of "art" as exclusively involving physical objects reveals an absurd bias towards the institution of the modern gallery, totally blind to any creative expressions which exist outside it, even in, say, the symphony hall two doors down. This would be bad enough if it weren't for the fact that this definition comes about ten pages after a lengthy discussion of John Cage's 4'33", a work of art that is entirely defined its by lack of existence, material or otherwise.
So that's pretty silly. Moving onto the second chapter, we find a discussion of the recent cleaning of the Sistine Chapel ceiling, which Danto comes out as vigorously opposed to. This is because, in his mind, part of the "meaning" embodied in the ceiling is that it is dirty, and therefore to clean the ceiling would destroy the artwork entirely. The dirt, Danto asserts, represents something along the lines of Plato's allegory of the cave, regarding how humanity can see glimpses of transcendent meaning even while living in a debased material plane. The reason Danto believes this is because he saw a picture of the ceiling after it had been cleaned and thought the figures looked crude and garish. Since Michelangelo was a great artist, he must not have intended it to look this way. In fact, this "destruction" of a work of art upset Danto so much that he refused to visit the Sistine Chapel ever again, on principle.
Does Danto sincerely believe, despite any historical evidence to point to, that somehow Michelangelo intended the ceiling to become dirty over time and never again cleaned, in order to create some gnostic allegory utterly central to the work? I certainly hope not. And as if that wasn't ludicrous enough, he wraps up the discussion of the Sistine Chapel by bringing up the metaphysical notions embedded in the relative flaccidity of the various penises of the figures, as well as the Platonic allegory implied in the homosexual overtones in the way the female figures are rendered.
At this point, the book is about halfway over. There are four more short chapters and these actually turn out to be decent, albeit a bit rambling. So it wasn't entirely worthless, but all the arguments asserted in first half of this book were just so insultingly stupid that I really feel compelled to mark it with the single star of shame.
In the first chapter, Danto bemoans the fact that his "fellow philosophers" believe that the category of "art" is so vague that there is no use coming up with a definition of it. He asserts that philosophers only believe art is an open-ended category because they don't really understand the arts the way an art critic would. A few pages later, Danto gives us his definition of a work of art - "meaning embodied in an object".
This definition, upon a few seconds' reflection, reveals itself to be very insufficient, for the obvious reason that not all art is a physical object. In fact, I think the majority of art is not embedded in a physical object - theater, music, film, poetry. How can Danto not realize this? The fact that he thinks of "art" as exclusively involving physical objects reveals an absurd bias towards the institution of the modern gallery, totally blind to any creative expressions which exist outside it, even in, say, the symphony hall two doors down. This would be bad enough if it weren't for the fact that this definition comes about ten pages after a lengthy discussion of John Cage's 4'33", a work of art that is entirely defined its by lack of existence, material or otherwise.
So that's pretty silly. Moving onto the second chapter, we find a discussion of the recent cleaning of the Sistine Chapel ceiling, which Danto comes out as vigorously opposed to. This is because, in his mind, part of the "meaning" embodied in the ceiling is that it is dirty, and therefore to clean the ceiling would destroy the artwork entirely. The dirt, Danto asserts, represents something along the lines of Plato's allegory of the cave, regarding how humanity can see glimpses of transcendent meaning even while living in a debased material plane. The reason Danto believes this is because he saw a picture of the ceiling after it had been cleaned and thought the figures looked crude and garish. Since Michelangelo was a great artist, he must not have intended it to look this way. In fact, this "destruction" of a work of art upset Danto so much that he refused to visit the Sistine Chapel ever again, on principle.
Does Danto sincerely believe, despite any historical evidence to point to, that somehow Michelangelo intended the ceiling to become dirty over time and never again cleaned, in order to create some gnostic allegory utterly central to the work? I certainly hope not. And as if that wasn't ludicrous enough, he wraps up the discussion of the Sistine Chapel by bringing up the metaphysical notions embedded in the relative flaccidity of the various penises of the figures, as well as the Platonic allegory implied in the homosexual overtones in the way the female figures are rendered.
At this point, the book is about halfway over. There are four more short chapters and these actually turn out to be decent, albeit a bit rambling. So it wasn't entirely worthless, but all the arguments asserted in first half of this book were just so insultingly stupid that I really feel compelled to mark it with the single star of shame.
December 13, 2020
از اون کتاب‌هایی بود که میدونم بعدا حتما بهش برمیگردم.
اینکه هنر و مخصوصا هنر معاصر (مثلا آثار اندی وارهول و مارسل دوشان که کتاب خیلی روشون تمرکز میکنه) چرا هنر حساب میشن، سوالیه که خیلی وقت‌ها باهاش مواجه شدم و رویکرد دانتو به این موضوع، دغدغه‌ش و نوع نوشتارش رو خیلی دوست داشتم.
تک‌تک فصل‌های کتاب خیلی جالبن. سوال‌هایی که مطرح میشن و بحث هایی که در ادامش میاد واقعا جالبن. مثلا بخش هایی که درباره‌ی مرمت و بدنمندی حرف میزد واقعا 10/10.
هرچند که یه ذره پراکنده به نظرم میومد و یه جاهایی پیوستگی مطالب رو گم میکردم. که البته این چیزی از ارزش‌های کتاب کم نمیکنه :)) (در واقع خودش هم توضیح میده که بعضی فصل‌ها رو جدا نوشته و بعدا جمعشون کرده توی این کتاب.)
خلاصه اینکه من واقعا کیف کردم از خوندنش و فکر کردن بهش.
اینکه هنر و مخصوصا هنر معاصر (مثلا آثار اندی وارهول و مارسل دوشان که کتاب خیلی روشون تمرکز میکنه) چرا هنر حساب میشن، سوالیه که خیلی وقت‌ها باهاش مواجه شدم و رویکرد دانتو به این موضوع، دغدغه‌ش و نوع نوشتارش رو خیلی دوست داشتم.
تک‌تک فصل‌های کتاب خیلی جالبن. سوال‌هایی که مطرح میشن و بحث هایی که در ادامش میاد واقعا جالبن. مثلا بخش هایی که درباره‌ی مرمت و بدنمندی حرف میزد واقعا 10/10.
هرچند که یه ذره پراکنده به نظرم میومد و یه جاهایی پیوستگی مطالب رو گم میکردم. که البته این چیزی از ارزش‌های کتاب کم نمیکنه :)) (در واقع خودش هم توضیح میده که بعضی فصل‌ها رو جدا نوشته و بعدا جمعشون کرده توی این کتاب.)
خلاصه اینکه من واقعا کیف کردم از خوندنش و فکر کردن بهش.
December 28, 2016
A very economical, dense and compact book attempting to answer a notoriously difficult question. Danto starts by recapping the most common approaches in defining art (art as imitation, as aesthetic value, even as something that cannot -and does not need to- be defined), before proposing his own approach (Art as embodied meaning). After explaining his theory, he elaborates on how this affects the artwork restoration, the body in philosophy of art, how it distorts Kantian definitions and finally, what does this mean for the future of aesthetics, since aesthetics is not a defining element of Art. Very interesting read and I'm definitely going to read Danto's "Transfiguration of the Commonplace" that precedes this work. It is very useful to have a visual reference of the artworks analyzed in the book and, of course, read it with an open mind, ready to discover new questions and not find magical answers (which is not the purpose of this work).
September 25, 2022
resumidamente, a resposta ao título é: obras de arte são significados incorporados. fim. gosto de danto, mas algumas ideias são datadas demais, não tem jeito.
October 11, 2016
Though well written, the book seemed a bit random to me - someone who is interested in art history & theory, but was not aware of every theme developed in the book. It lacks a game of argument & contra-argument, and seemed a bit one-sided, more like a personal opinion rather than academic or analytic text. Without a wider context, I experienced the book as a middle of the conversation without knowing how it began or ended.
Made me google a lot, which is never a bad thing. Good reference for future readings.
Made me google a lot, which is never a bad thing. Good reference for future readings.
May 11, 2023
Che cos’è l’arte?
Potrebbe, e forse è, una domanda aperta.
In questo saggio il critico Arthur C. Danto prova a dare risposta a questo quesito, cercando di trovare la radice che di un’opera fa un’opera d’arte.
Si parte dal pensiero di Platone, secondo cui l’arte figurativa è “mimesi” ossia riproduzione del reale. Per Platone, intento a conoscere la realtà delle cose, la mimesi viene vista in termine negativi se non dispregiativi, essendo solo una rappresentazione di ciò che appare e quanto di più lontano dall’essenza delle cose. Bisogna dire che questa definizione tiene banco per millenni e la rappresentazione retinica del reale è stata sempre un punto centrale dell’arte figurativa.
Ma poi succede qualcosa, nel Settecento viene coniato il termino estetica, e le immagini vengono anche considerate anche per il piacere che sono in grado di suscitare, fino alla nascita della fotografia che per alcuni artisti significa la morte della pittura mimetica.
Fortunatamente grazie l’arte astratta, il cubismo e le avanguardie l’uomo è stato capace di reinventare la pittura, ma cosa rimane?
Ebbene secondo Danto l’unico elemento comune ad ogni opera d’arte, che è una condizione necessaria ma mai sufficiente, è la capacità di dare corpo ad un significato. Dove per dare corpo si intende la capacità dell’artista di trasformare e maneggiare la materia e con significato si intende un qualsiasi concetto o emozione.
Per me l’arte è la capacità di cristallizzare tramite la materia un sentimento, un emozione, un pensiero o un concetto, quindi sono d’accordo col pensiero del critico.
Il testo si conclude poi con alcune riflessione sul campo dell’estetica.
Voi che ne pensate?
Potrebbe, e forse è, una domanda aperta.
In questo saggio il critico Arthur C. Danto prova a dare risposta a questo quesito, cercando di trovare la radice che di un’opera fa un’opera d’arte.
Si parte dal pensiero di Platone, secondo cui l’arte figurativa è “mimesi” ossia riproduzione del reale. Per Platone, intento a conoscere la realtà delle cose, la mimesi viene vista in termine negativi se non dispregiativi, essendo solo una rappresentazione di ciò che appare e quanto di più lontano dall’essenza delle cose. Bisogna dire che questa definizione tiene banco per millenni e la rappresentazione retinica del reale è stata sempre un punto centrale dell’arte figurativa.
Ma poi succede qualcosa, nel Settecento viene coniato il termino estetica, e le immagini vengono anche considerate anche per il piacere che sono in grado di suscitare, fino alla nascita della fotografia che per alcuni artisti significa la morte della pittura mimetica.
Fortunatamente grazie l’arte astratta, il cubismo e le avanguardie l’uomo è stato capace di reinventare la pittura, ma cosa rimane?
Ebbene secondo Danto l’unico elemento comune ad ogni opera d’arte, che è una condizione necessaria ma mai sufficiente, è la capacità di dare corpo ad un significato. Dove per dare corpo si intende la capacità dell’artista di trasformare e maneggiare la materia e con significato si intende un qualsiasi concetto o emozione.
Per me l’arte è la capacità di cristallizzare tramite la materia un sentimento, un emozione, un pensiero o un concetto, quindi sono d’accordo col pensiero del critico.
Il testo si conclude poi con alcune riflessione sul campo dell’estetica.
Voi che ne pensate?
February 17, 2023
When I found this book for sale at the Whitney, I was delighted to discover that they did indeed carry books about Aesthetics and the Philosophy of Art. This is a rather short read, only about 150 pages or so, but one that I found to be incredibly informative and elucidating. Reading Danto is the closest I have gotten to the domain of art history, yet I am sure there will be more to come…
4.5/5
4.5/5
June 17, 2023
3'5* Esperaba algo diferente de este ensayo, pero muy interesante
September 27, 2017
коли ми роздивляємося мистецькі твори дев'ятнадцятого століття й раніше, платонівська думка про мистецтво як наслідування працює доволі непогано. двадцяте, звісно, приносить трохи проблем, але двадцяте століття взагалі багато всього поламало, не тільки струнку категоризацію того, де мистецтво, а де не дуже.
артур данто пропонує визначення, яке за стислістю мало поступається платонівському – у платона одне слово, в данто два: мистецтво – це втілене значення. і ця красива теза не тільки робить простір для всіляких курта швіттерса й енді воргола, а й наштовхує на цікаві думки, наприклад, про естетику як засіб передачі значень – але тільки один із можливих засобів.
артур данто пропонує визначення, яке за стислістю мало поступається платонівському – у платона одне слово, в данто два: мистецтво – це втілене значення. і ця красива теза не тільки робить простір для всіляких курта швіттерса й енді воргола, а й наштовхує на цікаві думки, наприклад, про естетику як засіб передачі значень – але тільки один із можливих засобів.
August 25, 2017
Un sogno a occhi aperti
Il saggio di Bonami "Lo potevo fare anch'io" mi ha lasciato parecchi interrogativi, a causa dell'approssimazione con cui l'autore ha approcciato l'argomento dell'arte. Dopo accurata ricerca mi sono procurato quindi questo libro di Arthur Coleman Danto, uno dei più importanti filosofi e critici d'arte.
Le domande a cui Danto prova a dare risposta sono diverse. Provo ad elencarle:
1) Che cosa hanno in comune la Gioconda di Leonardo, l'orinatoio di Duchamp, la Merda d'artista di Manzoni, Guernica di Picasso e le scatole con le spugne abrasive Brillo di Wahrol? In altre parole l'arte, nel tempo, ha proprietà comuni?
2) Cosa ci permette di stabilire se, dati due oggetti, uno è ordinario mentre l'altro è un'opera d'arte?
3) L'arte deve essere associata necessariamente al concetto di "bello"?
Queste domande potrebbero concentrarsi tutte logicamente in una sola: cos'è, filosoficamente parlando, l'arte?
Dunque, sintetizzando, cosa ho capito dalla lettura?
Innanzitutto, se diciamo che l'arte è unica, è necessario che la definizione contenga caratteristiche che siano comuni a tutte le opere di tutte le epoche. Quindi bisogna trovare qualcosa che leghi la Monna Lisa all'orinatoio (no, Monna Lisa non era un Trans)
Questa proprietà non può essere né la bellezza né la somiglianza con una cosa. Infatti possiamo anche dire che la Gioconda sia bella, ma certo non possiamo dire altrettanto per l'"operato" di Manzoni. Se possiamo dire che La Monna Lisa è somigliante all'originale, lo stesso non possiamo dire per Guernica.
Kant diceva che "un'opera può anche essere bella, per quanto concerne il gusto, ma carente per quanto riguarda lo spirito". E Duchamp affermava che "l'arte poteva esistere in sé e che la sua importanza consisteva nell'estraneità a distinzioni estetiche, in un'epoca in cui era opinione diffusa che la sua ragion d'essere fosse proprio il piacere estetico."
Veniamo quindi al compendio finale. Cosa è l'arte?
"Una cosa è un'opera d'arte quando ha un significato e quando quel significato prende corpo nell'opera, il che in genere significa che prende corpo nell'oggetto in cui consiste materialmente l'opera d'arte. In breve, quindi le opere d'arte sono significati che prendono corpo."
In pratica, ancora meglio: "Sono le caratteristiche non visibili che consentono ad un oggetto di diventare un'opera d'arte". E questo chiude il cerchio.
Quindi non ha importanza se una cosa sia bella, brutta, storta, puzzolente, oscena, approssimativa, abbozzata, grezza. E' arte se dà corpo ad un significato. Un significato che, evidentemente, deve essere originale.
La domanda che scatta però è: ma qual è il significato dell'orinatoio?
Quando Duchamp nel 1917 presenta l'orinatoio, è la prima volta che un'opera viene scelta, non creata e questo elimina i tradizionali confini tra artistico ed extrartistico, tra estetico ed extraestetico. In sostanza il significato dell'orinatorio di Duchamp e della merda di Manzoni è l'idea. L'idea innovativa.
"Artistica, geniale, liberatoria, sovversiva, fu l’idea, e questo basterebbe, e bastò, a farlo diventare arte"
Ma non basta ancora. Danto arricchisce la sua definizione di arte con un'altra condizione: l’opera d’arte dev’essere “come un sogno a occhi aperti”.
Merda e orinatoio sono sogni? Sì, lo sono. Perché dirompenti sono state le idee ad essi associate.
Il saggio, per me, è molto molto interessante, specie il primo capitolo. Danto è logico, lineare, preparato, chiaro. Esattamente quanto Bonami è pressapochista e caciarone. Uno dei rari libri d'arte che mi ha fatto riflettere.
July 25, 2018
DNF. Chapter one was somewhat what I expected the book to be about. Gave up on chapter 2 midway through and same for chapter 3. Skimmed the rest and realized this wasn't what I was looking for. I won't blame Danto - maybe it's too advanced given my lack of art education. I was hoping this book would be a lot more accessible and less abstract.
May 4, 2020
Περισσότερο ένα δοκίμιο εγωκεντρισμού, όπου ο συγγραφέας παραθέτει τι έχει γράψει ανά καιρούς, μαζί με γενικόλογες σκέψεις/απόψεις. Ελάχιστα είναι τα σημεία όπου γίνεται πιο συγκεκριμένος - χωρίς ιδιαίτερα πολλά επιχειρήματα.
February 5, 2023
This was an alright read, a collection of essays/lectures tackling some interesting topics in the field of art and aesthetics. Full of interesting references and art world anecdotes, but I did have to force my way through some of the pages - some concepts felt like they were over-complicated for no valid reason, although that’s somewhat to be expected from these types of books and from being familiar with Danto. I do feel like I learned something and was challenged to think about art a little deeper though, so all in all worth the read.
July 13, 2020
Excelente ensayo que trata de darle una respuesta a la gran pregunta de "que es el arte?" Usando como base la filosofía y la historia del arte el autor nos plantea nuevos paradigmas para poder tener un juicio critico sobre las obras de arte antiguas, contemporáneas y futuras, me gustó mucho como deja en claro el trabajo de artistas como Duchamp y Warhol y los juicios estéticos que saca de Kant y hegel, lectura imprescindible para conocer más a fondo lo que es la estética, la Belleza y el arte.
January 18, 2021
Kohe ütleks, et oli mõnus. Aga midagi ikkagi... kuidagi... Ütleme, et ajaviitefilosoofiaks napilt liiga kuiv? Tunnistan hea meelega, et teose täielikumaks nautimiseks tuleks veel hulga paremini nii kunsti- kui filosoofiaajalooga kursis olla, sest neid näiteid ja nimesid siin jagub. Seega peatse jällenägemiseni!
Read
February 13, 2021"¿Dónde están los límites del arte? Si cualquier cosa puede ser arte, ¿qué distingue el arte de cualquier otra cosa? Nos queda el pequeño consuelo de que el hecho de que cualquier cosa pueda convertirse en arte no significa que todo sea arte. Duchamp logró tirar por tierra casi toda la historia de la estética, desde Platón hasta nuestros días"
December 15, 2020
برخی از فصول رو به شدت دوست داشتم و برخی رو نه خیلی. اما کلا کتاب برام آورده زیاد داشت، چیزهایی که شاید قبلا فکر کرده بودم بهشون و جوابی براش نداشتم، همینطور چیزهایی که ��صلا بهشون فکر نکرده بودم.
February 9, 2022
1,5⭐️
no sabía que el autor era un filósofo y que por ello no iba a entender la mitad del libro, además se me ha hecho un poco pesado :|
no sabía que el autor era un filósofo y que por ello no iba a entender la mitad del libro, además se me ha hecho un poco pesado :|
July 6, 2016
Wonderful and enchanting.
Read
February 9, 2019Danto's dense, delightful book was, for me, a 4 month reading experience and crash course in art history. Every other page refers to an artist or philosopher, and I’d stop to look up the person, learn about him/her (alas, mostly him), see the art or read a bit of the writing.
My absolutely favorite newly discovered artist is Charles Simonds, who “made little clay dwellings in the cracks of building in what was going to be SoHo - which he insisted were occupied by ‘Little People.’” (34-5) Ever since childhood, I have looked for and longed to find Little People! Unfortunately I had to grown up and let go of the literal quest, but Simonds' work gives me secret hope. Maybe someday …
For the here and now, Danto gave me plenty to think about with his philosophical definition, that "works of art are embodied meaning." (37)
My absolutely favorite newly discovered artist is Charles Simonds, who “made little clay dwellings in the cracks of building in what was going to be SoHo - which he insisted were occupied by ‘Little People.’” (34-5) Ever since childhood, I have looked for and longed to find Little People! Unfortunately I had to grown up and let go of the literal quest, but Simonds' work gives me secret hope. Maybe someday …
For the here and now, Danto gave me plenty to think about with his philosophical definition, that "works of art are embodied meaning." (37)
June 27, 2013
" We should not be content with making little amendments and comments on beauty and taste. Visual artists now have the opportunity to use any medium possible to weigh in on any subject and the only criteria is the depth and clarity by which that “embodied meaning,” as Danto calls it, reveals itself. This is liberating and scary. Artists are required to be better and viewers are required to be smarter."
--Ed Schad on Arthur C. Danto's "What Art Is" from Yale University Press
Read the full review here:
http://theartbookreview.org/2013/06/2...
--Ed Schad on Arthur C. Danto's "What Art Is" from Yale University Press
Read the full review here:
http://theartbookreview.org/2013/06/2...
April 8, 2023
Danto se dedica a sostener la tesis de que el arte, para ser comprendido, debe conocerse también la historia de éste.
Aunque es cansina su reflexión reiterada acerca de la «Brillo box» de Warhol y los «ready-mades» de Duchamp (pues en gran parte de su obra usa los mismos ejemplos), ofrece más episodios de la historia del arte para presentar diversas cuestiones acerca del ser de aquel: ¿cómo se diferencia una obra de arte de un objeto de la realidad?, ¿es el arte solamente una expresión de sentimiento?, son algunas de las cuestiones repasadas por el autor.
Considero que es un texto de carácter introductorio al tema de la estética, ya que el filósofo tiene una escritura para nada barroca: los argumentos que utiliza son claros y se apoya de otras autoridades de la estética para justificar sus propuestas.
En conclusión, Danto está bien para introducirse a la estética e incluso como material de apoyo a las reflexiones respecto al arte, pero es cierto también que recurrentemente transita por los mismos periodos y ejemplos artísticos, por lo que llega a ser cansado e incluso aburrido, pues lo magnánimo que encuentra en los vanguardistas antes mencionados, debido a la reiteración, deviene en hastío.
Aunque es cansina su reflexión reiterada acerca de la «Brillo box» de Warhol y los «ready-mades» de Duchamp (pues en gran parte de su obra usa los mismos ejemplos), ofrece más episodios de la historia del arte para presentar diversas cuestiones acerca del ser de aquel: ¿cómo se diferencia una obra de arte de un objeto de la realidad?, ¿es el arte solamente una expresión de sentimiento?, son algunas de las cuestiones repasadas por el autor.
Considero que es un texto de carácter introductorio al tema de la estética, ya que el filósofo tiene una escritura para nada barroca: los argumentos que utiliza son claros y se apoya de otras autoridades de la estética para justificar sus propuestas.
En conclusión, Danto está bien para introducirse a la estética e incluso como material de apoyo a las reflexiones respecto al arte, pero es cierto también que recurrentemente transita por los mismos periodos y ejemplos artísticos, por lo que llega a ser cansado e incluso aburrido, pues lo magnánimo que encuentra en los vanguardistas antes mencionados, debido a la reiteración, deviene en hastío.
May 5, 2020
دانتو در این کتاب به دنبال تعریف هنره و علی‌رغم اینکه در هنر معاصر بیش از پیش با باز بودن تعریف هنر مواجه می‌شیم، همچنان معتقده اگه هنر رو تعریف نکنیم هیچ معیاری برای تمیز دادن هنر از ناهنر نخواهیم داشت. اثری که به شدت درگیرش کرده از اول تا آخر کتاب جعبه‌های بریلوی اندی وارهوله و می‌خواد ببینه چیه که باعث می‌شه این جعبه‌ها رو هنر بدونیم.
یه فصل خیلی خیلی خوبی داره که من از تمام کتاب بیشتر دوستش داشتم درباره‌ی مرمت نقاشی‌های میکل‌آنژ روی سقف سیستین و تلاشی که به اسم غبارروبی باعث شد رنگ نقاشی‌ها بسیار درخشان و شاد بشن. به نظر دانتو اگه هدف میکل‌آنژ این بوده که از قصد نقاشی‌ها رو تیره بکشه و بیشتر شبیه طراحی باشن واسه اینکه نشون بده تمام این فیگورها در حال تقلا برای بیرون اومدن از تاریکی و رفتن به سوی نورن، با این مرمت درواقع اثر هنری میکل‌آنژ برای همیشه خراب شده.
اما دانتو نمی‌تونه فراتر از این بره که برخی ویژگی‌ها هست که بین آثار هنری مشترکه، اما صرف داشتن اون ویژگی باعث نمی‌شه چیزی اثر هنری محسوب بشه و مهم‌ترین ویژگی به‌نظرش معناداریه و به نظرش هنر تجسم معناست. در نهایت می‌شه گفت آثار هنری به نظر دانتو همه معنادارن اما هر چیز معناداری هنر نیست. جدای این، سعی میکنه نشون بده که برای همیشه زیباشناسی از هنر جدا شده و دیگه لزوماً آثار هنری نباید لزوماً زیبا باشن.
یه فصل خیلی خیلی خوبی داره که من از تمام کتاب بیشتر دوستش داشتم درباره‌ی مرمت نقاشی‌های میکل‌آنژ روی سقف سیستین و تلاشی که به اسم غبارروبی باعث شد رنگ نقاشی‌ها بسیار درخشان و شاد بشن. به نظر دانتو اگه هدف میکل‌آنژ این بوده که از قصد نقاشی‌ها رو تیره بکشه و بیشتر شبیه طراحی باشن واسه اینکه نشون بده تمام این فیگورها در حال تقلا برای بیرون اومدن از تاریکی و رفتن به سوی نورن، با این مرمت درواقع اثر هنری میکل‌آنژ برای همیشه خراب شده.
اما دانتو نمی‌تونه فراتر از این بره که برخی ویژگی‌ها هست که بین آثار هنری مشترکه، اما صرف داشتن اون ویژگی باعث نمی‌شه چیزی اثر هنری محسوب بشه و مهم‌ترین ویژگی به‌نظرش معناداریه و به نظرش هنر تجسم معناست. در نهایت می‌شه گفت آثار هنری به نظر دانتو همه معنادارن اما هر چیز معناداری هنر نیست. جدای این، سعی میکنه نشون بده که برای همیشه زیباشناسی از هنر جدا شده و دیگه لزوماً آثار هنری نباید لزوماً زیبا باشن.
July 11, 2021
Incredibly short-sighted in its attempt to define art, essentially and universally, using only Western examples, and then only drawing from philosophical discussions from Socrates & Aristotle and from art examples from post-Renaissance. Also fails to recognize head-on the way in which art as a concept is constructed by elite culture & elite value as part of its definition despite premising half of his definition on the tastes of the “high-culture Art World” (come on, dude, you’re so close). Treats making the art world a more inclusive place as a push that involved real thought about what art “meant” rather than recognizing how Western artistic movements “borrowed” from different cultures constantly without citing their work/giving artistic credence to their sources of inspiration. Overall, not worth the read; analysis isn’t very rigorous or prescient. DNF.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 84 reviews