Arthur C. Danto and the Art World October 3-5, 2002.by the Journal of Philosophy, school of the Arts, and Philosophy Department
Recollections, Notes and Imagined Conversations after a Round Table on Philosophy and Contemporary Art
by the Journal of Philosophy, school of the Arts
Arthur C. Danto and the Art World October 3-5, 2002.
Co-presented by the Journal of Philosophy, school of the Arts, and Philosophy Department
Moderator: Daniel Shapiro
Panelists: Arthur C. Danto; David Carrier; William Kentridge; Katy Siegel; Robert Storr; Ann Temkin
The following text is an amalgam of notes taken on the panel discussion and commentary on the discussion by Abraham Lubelski
The best artists are the ones who are philosophers. When they cease to be artists they become philosophers. When they cease to be artists the narrative ends. We are all children of our time. The end of art means the narrative is over. Why fluxus? Why pop art? Fluxus and pop art raise the question as to why we are doing art. Why this is art. Why everything from before is being thrown overboard. What is the relationship between art and philosophy, what is the continuity, after art turns into philosophy?
That is the question, what art is. There is a separation between observing and doing, observing tends to go in the direction of philosophizing. Making philosophy out of pop art. It didn’t seem to occur with abstraction, Danto didn’t find the challenge in abstraction. Without pop he would not have gotten into writing about art. With pop and with Andy Warhol it seemed to be inevitable that there was thinking and meaning and questioning to pursue.
And so it became philosophical. Philosophy and art criticism are parallel tracks. An advantage of pop is how it somehow bypasses critics and bypasses collectors. They love it, they buy it they just like it – nobody has to say anything about it. The legitimizing function of critics is in the past. Today’s situation contrary to Clement Greenberg’s day deals with pluralism. We don’t have one theory of art. Danto’s essential point in "After the End of Art" was wherever you go is OK. Art as we know it has ended. The danger for a magazine and everyone else is that we can become irrelevant; you have to keep looking and asking questions and changing all the time.
Where do we go from here? There isn’t very much else to say is there. Except everyone is still talking about Clement Greenberg. What wonderful things he did or how difficult it is to debunk him. We are all trying to see if we can start a narrative. Albeit if it is just from a philosopher then it is from a philosopher’s point of view; if it is from an engineer it from an engineering point of view. If it is from a painter then it is about painting.
But people like Danto or people all around look for meaning and so the meaning is all important. Does that make it philosophy. We suppose so, the philosopher is after all the thinker.
But what else where they talking about. It really didn’t add up to much else it was a tribute to the attempt by Arthur Danto to become a philosopher/artist – the person who can talk about art as ideas. Once you begin to talk about art as an idea you cease to become an artist. That the art world seems to have run out of ideas is part of the premise.
The curator thinks about what the artist is thinking. The curator thinks about what the artist is doing. The philosopher thinks about what the artist is thinking. The philosopher thinks about what the artist is doing, though what the artist is actually doing doesn’t really interest the philosopher. The writer seems to think that thinking without writing isn’t enough. Where does that put the philosopher’s book; perhaps the book is an art work itself unless we can make big distinctions between large books like those of Anselm Kiefer and any other publication as an object.
And there is the artist himself, the artist likes to do both, likes to think, at least some of them do. The artist likes to imagine what the work has in terms of other possibilities but for the most part they all have to agree they make an object and the object is sort of a tangential point from which an idea might be generated. Although artists of a stricter bent would say there are no ideas there is just what you see or hear or smell or whatever it is and that is it. This brings us back to the argument that when we’re talking about art we are just talking about what we see, and then there is performance art and there is conceptual art there is smelly art, etc. There is language and the printed word, etc.
What do we have here, not too much at this point, a little bit of a history lesson as to what thoughts what actions have been generated over the last 30, 40 years and who has thought what about certain behaviors and certain objects. Everyone tries to be somewhat conclusive and definitive and point out that it is either a chaotic system or a very democratic one — a pseudonym for chaos in today’s world.
The expression asshole came up. It seems that some artists think that some critics are assholes or that philosophers or whatever might be. And other people think if they think that of me then they must be assholes themselves.
And there are people who write for our magazine who claim they want to reinvent criticism. Others write and say they want to name names and say who is doing what and make the artists and themselves famous. Others want to discover artists and want to see what the artists are discovering. We ourselves at the magazine seem to try to tell ourselves that we just want to be democratic or chaotic as the case may be. We just want everyone to have a voice to have a chance for artists/writers to be seen to be heard and just try to present an opinion. We try to keep it as open as possible; we’re not sure that that matters and we are always accused of following our own agenda. When making an art journal how do we keep the self interest out of it. Danto himself sees no problem with being friends with the artists and knowing them as well as he does.
And then as seems to be the clich� even heard at the panel discussion, people say, "you know we really don’t make very much money." We would have to chime in with the same phrase. Nevertheless we do make something. And so does everyone else. There is a distinction here. Everyone is reasonably comfortable compared to others who are extremely uncomfortable in their plight.
So what do you get out of it. Not enough unfortunately. Not enough for everyone, not just ourselves. The statement "we don’t make very much money" doesn’t address the issue which is what is the responsibility of the critic, the curator, the artist, the writer, the publisher. The responsibility is to struggle to get out there and fight to take the chance that in fact makes you uncomfortable, insecure.
It is a question of life or death. Yes it is. It is a question of survival. Are there answers out there, or any questions, or any dialecticians, come on let’s keep moving. Is there anyone with me is there anyone out there?
Then there are the writers who want to reinvent criticism. And does criticism need to be reinvented our will our narcissism get the better of us. I like this; I see that; I see this; I know that; I invent that; I think this; I think that. What do you think? What do you want to do? Who are you? I don’t think I can function without my asshole can you?
