Reflection on the Philosopher Danto

I finally found someone who could articulate my ideas about art, when Cynthia Freeland discusses the philosopher Arthur Danto’s view of art in But Is It Art? It is very interesting that Danto was so intrigued by Andy Warhol, because I have always found it hard to understand Warhol’s works of art. In particular, I feel like I can relate to Danto’s thoughts on Warhol’s Brillo Boxes. How can exact replicas of an ordinary object be art? It seems Warhol often uses common images or objects and a simple color palette for his art, but if I did the same thing in high school, I would have failed my art class. Somehow Warhol makes a connection with people who label and admire his work as art. Indeed, Danto provides the explanation that a work becomes a piece of art when it conveys meaning to the beholders. I like Freeland’s note about how the boxes were considered art because of the time period in which they were made. She often reminds us that art is relative to the time period and cultural background in which was created. I think this is an extremely important point, because it makes it much more difficult to dismiss something as not being art. Additionally, something may not be considered art immediately, but if people in the future appreciate it, then it becomes art.

Danto makes a good point about the focus of prior philosophers on the art of their own time. Art changes with time, and it makes sense that philosophers could become occupied with the art that is most familiar to them. They would be thinking about and forming ideas about the art in their societies, similar to Danto reflecting on Warhol. However, Danto saw the broader picture of art. He describes the theory of art as being the connection between the artist and the audience based on factors such as social context. This is the best explanation I have read as to why there are so many different types of art. Further, there are so many things that may be considered art, but they can be assigned to particular categories or groups that can be described by general characteristics and often correlate to certain time periods. It is also interesting that Danto clarifies that some art is better than others. He focuses on how art conveys meaning as a judgment of its quality, which is a wise approach to observing works of art.

Response to Richard Conniff's "The Natural History of Art"

“The Natural History of Art” by Richard Conniff provides a fascinating perspective as to what fundamentally attracts humans to art. His assertion that people are generally attracted to landscapes with water, a couple trees, and wide open views is an interesting point. It would seem to me to be at the very least inoffensive to the largest number of individuals. Aside from the complaint that one too many landscapes at the local art museum drag on a bit long, they are often a safe and desirable choice particularly in public areas. While many people can disagree that a propensity towards a particular kind of landscape is in our genes, they cannot argue with a common indispensible element of suburbia: a park. The classic park has play areas for children and a couple of picnic benches and more often than not open grassy areas with trees here and there. The ideal park also has a little pond with seasonal water fowl and a few small fish or a fountain of some sort. Do these elements seem familiar or is it just my innate human sense to be attracted to a walk through the local park?

Additionally, he offers insight into why people react similarly to certain types of art. He focuses on the visual response to art and relates it to visual cues that evoke characteristic responses, such as snake skin and fear. What of body language? I have often heard much of the communication between people occurs through their body language as opposed to their actual words. A foreigner who does not know any of the local language can at least pick up on someone who looks hospitable versus hostile. I realize some of this is attributed to learned behavior, but all humans can make similar gestures such as smiling and frowning. If people have a fundamental way of understanding one another, can the same crude responses not be applied to how we initially react to art? It may be a stretch, but body language is likely not in the conscious thought of the average person just like a subconscious response to artwork.