What do you think?
Rate this book
The Philosophical Disenfranchisement of Art
In this acclaimed work, first published in 1986, world-renowned scholar Arthur C. Danto explored the inextricably linked but often misunderstood relationship between art and philosophy. In light of the book's impact―especially the essay "The End of Art," which dramatically announced that art ended in the 1960s―this enhanced edition includes a foreword by Jonathan Gilmore that discusses how scholarship has changed in response to it. Complete with a new bibliography of work on and influenced by Danto's ideas, The Philosophical Disenfranchisement of Art continues to be of interest to anyone who thinks seriously about art, as well as to philosophers, aestheticians, and art historians.
248 pages, Paperback
First published September 1, 1986
11 people are currently reading
271 people want to read
About the author
Arthur C. Danto
166 books160 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 - 11 of 11 reviews
November 8, 2009
I picked this book up both because I thought that as a relative newcomer to art appreciation, it would be helpful to have a thoughtful theoretical account of art, its aims, the aesthetic standards we do or should bring to bear on it, and so on; and because the book's title suggested that all of this might have something to do with philosophy generally (as opposed to the philosophy of art in particular), which is certainly an interest of mine. I think the book succeeds much better on the former front than the latter, but to be fair that is because, despite the title, "The Philosophical Disenfranchisement of Art" is not primarily about philosophy, but, instead--and happily for me--is about art.
As one should probably expect from a collection of essays, the quality and ambition of the pieces vary a bit, but they are almost always at least interesting. "The End of Art" is probably the gem of the collection, as it most explicitly and thoroughly sets out the author's Hegelian philosophy of art and of art history. (Its explicit Hegelianism, with its suggestion of a linear, progressive history of art, and an "end" to that history, made me skeptical, but I actually found the theory pretty plausible--though admittedly I know very little about the subject.) The title essay is also thought-provoking, though I have to say that I found Danto's discussion of Plato's Republic--one of the few subjects in the book that I actually do know a little about--to be rather thin in places.
Danto is a self-consciously stylish author, and occasionally his flair veers into a slightly annoying preciousness, but much less so than I worried might happen. More often the stylistic flourishes are at least amusing or clever, and sometimes they really help to underscore the author's insights.
Perhaps the highest praise I have for Danto's work is that, having returned to more ordinary art history books, I find myself applying some of Danto's categories and insights, and finding them remarkably helpful in understanding at least the progression of modern art, which is his primary subject here. For me, at least, that was really what I most wanted out of the book, and I'm glad it delivered.
As one should probably expect from a collection of essays, the quality and ambition of the pieces vary a bit, but they are almost always at least interesting. "The End of Art" is probably the gem of the collection, as it most explicitly and thoroughly sets out the author's Hegelian philosophy of art and of art history. (Its explicit Hegelianism, with its suggestion of a linear, progressive history of art, and an "end" to that history, made me skeptical, but I actually found the theory pretty plausible--though admittedly I know very little about the subject.) The title essay is also thought-provoking, though I have to say that I found Danto's discussion of Plato's Republic--one of the few subjects in the book that I actually do know a little about--to be rather thin in places.
Danto is a self-consciously stylish author, and occasionally his flair veers into a slightly annoying preciousness, but much less so than I worried might happen. More often the stylistic flourishes are at least amusing or clever, and sometimes they really help to underscore the author's insights.
Perhaps the highest praise I have for Danto's work is that, having returned to more ordinary art history books, I find myself applying some of Danto's categories and insights, and finding them remarkably helpful in understanding at least the progression of modern art, which is his primary subject here. For me, at least, that was really what I most wanted out of the book, and I'm glad it delivered.
July 9, 2014
While I'm not sure that I agree with all of Danto's arguments, I do appreciate his rigor and style. He writes for both philosophers (read: some academic language and syntax) and the common reader. I am aware that I'm inviting an obvious objection, so I'll pre-empt it: yes, you would get more out of the text if you studied philosophy somewhat discursively. However, I wouldn't just call what he does simply name dropping. He makes his points while crediting the thinker. And the best part is that his treatments result in very little, if any, distortion of the original thinker, though one might raise some minor quibbles.
My major beef is that I did not like his style of citations, because I couldn't locate at least one quotation that I wanted to follow up on. I would have preferred him axe the index in favor of footnotes or endnotes.
By far, the best essays for me were "Philosophy as/and/of Literature" and "Philosophizing Literature". But that is probably because I studied and continue to study philosophy while teaching English.
My major beef is that I did not like his style of citations, because I couldn't locate at least one quotation that I wanted to follow up on. I would have preferred him axe the index in favor of footnotes or endnotes.
By far, the best essays for me were "Philosophy as/and/of Literature" and "Philosophizing Literature". But that is probably because I studied and continue to study philosophy while teaching English.
July 26, 2024
Now I’m by no means an authority figure in visual art but the ideas grabbed me. Danto took the Hegelian idea of history and applied that to art, to showcase how we are in a post historical world of the visual arts. Art used to be representative of something whether that be depicting a real life event, commentating on the politics or morality of its time, or simply “copying” an object as Plato would say. And then with the advent of cameras and pictures, the medium for representation has changed, there is no longer a need to paint something when that thing can be captured via a camera. Which then leads to the birth of expressionism in the modern period, where artists like Picasso recognize the impact of the camera, and are basically saying, “You know what? Screw your cameras. I’ll paint something and give you how I feel about it.” And as this got more and more abstract, it starts to develop into post-modernism, with Duchamp’s Fountain being the real signal that “Art has died”.
Well, why has art died? Because it’s no longer about the object and its visual properties, but instead the interpretation of said object. Duchamp’s fountain can be described as thus, “a Home Depot urinal with a signature that isn’t even the author’s which is on display in an Art Gallery.” Do you need to visually see this piece to be able to interpret it? No. This description gives you all that you need. The visuals do no matter, because Duchamp did not construct the urinal, it was simply purchased from a store. What matters is your interpretation of the urinal, and you can interpret it whether you see it in person or read it off text like you are now. Thus, as anything can be called art, and as art only lies in interpretation, it has now become post-historical, which really means art has become philosophy. And what does this say for the snooty philosophers who have distanced and shown disdain towards art? What they have shown distaste for has become what they love. And does this mean philosophy will follow a similar path? Well, not particularly for Danto. He believes that if the ultimate reality ever be discovered, philosophy wouldn’t even enter post-historical context, it would just simply end for the truth had at last been discovered. Will this ever happen, and even if it did, would I believe philosophy has reached its end? Not really.
In sum, great book which gave me an entirely new perspective on visual arts.
Well, why has art died? Because it’s no longer about the object and its visual properties, but instead the interpretation of said object. Duchamp’s fountain can be described as thus, “a Home Depot urinal with a signature that isn’t even the author’s which is on display in an Art Gallery.” Do you need to visually see this piece to be able to interpret it? No. This description gives you all that you need. The visuals do no matter, because Duchamp did not construct the urinal, it was simply purchased from a store. What matters is your interpretation of the urinal, and you can interpret it whether you see it in person or read it off text like you are now. Thus, as anything can be called art, and as art only lies in interpretation, it has now become post-historical, which really means art has become philosophy. And what does this say for the snooty philosophers who have distanced and shown disdain towards art? What they have shown distaste for has become what they love. And does this mean philosophy will follow a similar path? Well, not particularly for Danto. He believes that if the ultimate reality ever be discovered, philosophy wouldn’t even enter post-historical context, it would just simply end for the truth had at last been discovered. Will this ever happen, and even if it did, would I believe philosophy has reached its end? Not really.
In sum, great book which gave me an entirely new perspective on visual arts.
September 30, 2021
Anteriormente havia lido capítulos específicos para a pesquisa utilizando uma edição brasileira da Autêntica e retomei a leitura da peça inteira nesse mês, na edição da Columbia University Press. Percebi uso reduzido de recursos exegéticos e elaborações obscuras nesse livro em específico. Danto realmente tem uma competência retórica e argumentativa impressionante, fora o extenso repertório em Hegel. Bons pontos no geral e destaque nos seguintes ensaios:
II. The Appreciation and Interpretation of Works of Art
IV. Language, Art, Culture, Text
V. The End of Art
II. The Appreciation and Interpretation of Works of Art
IV. Language, Art, Culture, Text
V. The End of Art
December 1, 2018
A must read for anyone intersted in art.
December 28, 2010
This collection of essays is not as great as The Transfiguration of the Commonplace. It is an excellent work, don't get me wrong. However, I just don't agree with many of the essays that reject hermeneutics and other interpretations in favor of author's intent.
Currently reading
December 3, 2010sucked in by the title, so far Danto has kept the promises it made
May 14, 2024
meh. don't quite know how i feel about Danto yet.
July 22, 2014
în hăţişul ghimpos și umed
September 7, 2020
I couldn't finish this. Even as someone who has completed a graduate degree and works in the museum field, the writing was far too dense and utterly inaccessible.
September 8, 2014
Fabuloso! Um clássico para começar a entender a arte contemporânea.
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews