The Artworld and the Institutional Theory of Art (original) (raw)

Abstract

In this paper, two of the most well known theories of art in Analytic philosophy, The Artworld and The Institutional Theory of Art, are compared. Both of them aim to analyse the complex context of contemporary art in Western culture. Despite some apparent similarities and the fact that they are often used synonymously, the two theories have different meanings. It is argued that, although to a different extent, the two theories are incomplete and they do not offer a satisfying definition of art. In order to demonstrate this thesis statement, firstly the two concepts of art are analysed, showing, consequently, how they diverge from each other and, finally, it is explained why they fail to meet their premises. The confrontation between the two theories is mainly focused on the considerations made by the authors as to their own definitions of art and on the criticisms each theorist addresses to the other. This is functional to demonstrate how the two theories can be seen as similar and, consequentially, how the authors deploy a great deal of effort to distinguish themselves from each other. The conclusion expresses a different way to consider the relation between Analytic and Continental philosophy; specifically, it proposes the possibility to formulate a new concept of art theory as a complementary unity of both approaches.

Figures (1)

Figure 1: Andy Warhol, Brillo Box, 1964. The Brillo boxes, reproduced in many exemplars by Andy Warhol, are almost the exact reproductions — in plywood — of Procter and Gamble’s commercial boxes — in cardboard — used by Brillo company to ship its product. For this reason Danto talks of indiscernibility: it is difficult to distinguish the copy from the original. Moreover, he repeatedly saic that, although there are differences between the two objects, this is not a question of interest: “A philosopher would sound foolish who said that being made of wood is what marks the work of art, especially when so many of the world's artworks are made of paper. And it could easily have been imagined that the reverse of what did happen happened — Brillo Box could have been a cardboarc simulacrum of the good solid plywood containers in which the Brillo people shipped their soap pads” (Danto 1992, 38).

Figure 1: Andy Warhol, Brillo Box, 1964. The Brillo boxes, reproduced in many exemplars by Andy Warhol, are almost the exact reproductions — in plywood — of Procter and Gamble’s commercial boxes — in cardboard — used by Brillo company to ship its product. For this reason Danto talks of indiscernibility: it is difficult to distinguish the copy from the original. Moreover, he repeatedly saic that, although there are differences between the two objects, this is not a question of interest: “A philosopher would sound foolish who said that being made of wood is what marks the work of art, especially when so many of the world's artworks are made of paper. And it could easily have been imagined that the reverse of what did happen happened — Brillo Box could have been a cardboarc simulacrum of the good solid plywood containers in which the Brillo people shipped their soap pads” (Danto 1992, 38).

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.