Trouble in Danto’s Artworld :: Danto Art Essays

Trouble in Danto’s Artworld Danto’s theory of artistic identification accepts a problematic class of artwork as art: art made entirely of space. Consider the avant-garde artist who claims an unoccupied space in the Museum of Modern Art and calls it â€Å"Missing Van Gogh;† it can be shown by Danto’s â€Å"is† of artistic identification that her work is art. It not only fulfills Danto’s requirements, but also, it distinguishes itself as revolutionary by expanding the style matrix, and as clever, by belonging to the once-problematic category of artwork called ‘indiscernibles.’ However, it can be shown that â€Å"Missing Van Gogh’s† lack of spatial and temporal boundaries adds infinite predicates to the style matrix and thus reveals a flaw in Danto’s theory. Danto’s theory of artistic identification requires only that the sentence â€Å"x is P,† where x is a given work and P a predicate functioning as an interpretation of that work, apply to a member of what he calls the ‘Artworld.’ He calls the word ‘is’ between x and the P in the sentence the ‘â€Å"is† of artistic interpretation,’ and any work indicated by this ‘is’ is art. For instance, we may say â€Å"the Eroica Symphony is profound.† By Danto’s definition, the fact that this artistic interpretation of the work is possible is sufficient to show that it is a work of art. Danto also posits a style matrix consisting of all the variant combinations of art-relevant predicates in today’s Artworld. This matrix serves as a context in which all artworks can be discussed, and is open to the addition of predicates as artists make innovative breakthroughs. The revolutionary beauty of Danto’s theory lies in its openness and simplicity; it is able to embrace new artistic developments because it refuses to identify specific properties as indicative of artwork status. It is more accepting than theories which name properties, such as the family resemblance theory, which rejects the first of every new class of artwork, or even Gaut’s cluster theory, which demands some consistency.[1] Yet, this radical openness of Danto’s theory demands scrutiny; if there is an artwork which Danto’s theory accepts on account of its openness, but which it ought not to, then Danto’s theory is flawed.