ARTHUR C. DANTO. The Transfiguration of the Commonplace. IN THE PRESENT STATE of the artworld, it is possible that a painting be exhibited which is. The Transfiguration of the Commonplace. Author(s): Arthur C. Danto. Source: The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 33, No. 2 (Winter, ), pp. The Transfiguration of the Commonplace has ratings and 20 reviews. Arthur C. Danto argues that recent developments in the art world, in particular the .
|Published (Last):||28 May 2017|
|PDF File Size:||9.88 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||3.34 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
We note a general Wittgensteinian family resemblance between the class of art objects, but what is the defining feature? Anyone who wants to put the work into learning the language of art shares in its power. The first is that if the structure of artworks is, or is very close to the structure of metaphors, then no paraphrase or summary of the artwork can engage the participatory mind in at all the ways that it can; and no critical account of the internal metaphor of the work can substitute for the work inasmuch as the description of a metaphor simply does not have the power of the metaphor it describes, just as a description of a cry of anguish does not activate the same response as the cry of anguish itself.
Roughly stated, this argues that anything is art that museum directors and academics say it is, the job for the rest of us to supply the adulation. Danto has been criticized for his belief in duality, underlined by the Christian or Catholic figure of transfiguration, and reiterated throughout the book in his references to the body and the soul.
My text ‘ Are Rubens and Beuys colleagues ‘, deals with this fallacy. Harvard University Press Amazon. In order for the viewer to grasp the artistic intention behind the art work, the viewer must know or come to understand the meanings that the artist infused into the work.
While this last looks exactly like the other three, it is not an art object, just a thing in the world.
The Transfiguration of the Commonplace: A Philosophy of Art
These same works, however, could encourage sexist rigidity in any reader fixated on its content. One would never say of an actual flower that it was powerful but a picture of a flower transfiguraion be. Carter – – Mind 93 My library Help Advanced Book Search. Certainly, the two books share many basic premises, the autonomy of art from everyday discourse being the most basic. Danto argues that recent developments in the art world, in particular the production of works of art that cannot be told from ordinary things, make urgent the need for a new theory of art and make plain the factors such transfigurattion theory can and cannot involve.
The transfiguration of transfigurwtion commonplace: A Philosophy of Art. More to come but it might take a while. The difference between a representation and an artistic representation is that the latter is artistically intended, meaning, the artist, with his knowledge of the artworld and art history, intends to make a work of art.
Review of ‘Danto: Transfiguration of the commonplace’ by Stefan Beyst
I had an Aesthetics course this semester past, and though this text mis-translates a Borges story, it still manages to be very good.
The only thing that really didn’t like is that the book is so dedicated to clarify the details of the relation between knowledge and art, that it forgets to include the aesthetic part of it. Any book that makes you want to make is a good one.
Even the type of representation is entirely different; mine is transfigufation ball in some pool, and yours is very specific, the sun in the sky in one particular point in time and history.
Kory rated it it was amazing Jan 22, A wealth of examples, drawn especially from recent and contemporary art, illuminate the argument. But the urinal is transfguration at all transformed into the representation of something else, into an image — and such has certainly not transgiguration the intention of Duchamp, the champion of anti-mimesis par excellence. Moreover, to a unique form of life, the only one that allows and perhaps encourages semantic deferral.
Danto is a great explainer of transfiguratoin. It is not just, as is so often said, that metaphors go stale; they go dead in a way that sometimes require scholarly resurrection.
Pedro Torres rated it really liked it Oct 09, In the course of constructing such a theory, he transfiguation to demonstrate the relationship between philosophy and art, as well as the connections that hold between art and social institutions and art history.
The Transfiguration of the Commonplace: A Philosophy of Art – Arthur Coleman Danto – Google Books
Gransfiguration think arthyr theory leaves a lot to be desired, and has several holes. To ask other readers questions about The Transfiguration tansfiguration the Commonplaceplease sign up. Michael Gerald Lafferty – unknown.
Join Transfigueation Mailing List: Read, highlight, and take notes, across web, tablet, and phone. Want to Read Currently Reading Read. Nov 25, Drenda rated it really liked it.
Sep 10, Ryder rated it it was amazing Shelves: History of Western Philosophy. He would say that anything that was ever considered art was embedded in the viewpoints and possibilities of its time: The book distinguishes what belongs or artistic theory from what has traditionally been confused with it, namely aesthetic theory and offers as well a systematic account of metaphor, expression, and style, together with an original account of artistic representation.
Books by Arthur C. Reading Danto was made especially interesting by having read The Sovereignty of Art by Christoph Menke not long before. Danto combines common sense with high-flown and historical philosophical ideas about art, and I would cite his work as a kind of take-down for deconstructionist theories. Much food for thought here, for those who spend mental energy on intellectual ideas about being, damto, and expression. Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read.
In this work of philosophy, Danto wishes to define art, and to show why contemporary art, having attained atrhur, is asking the same questions as philosophy. If, in the last analysis, the result of aesthetic responding is an attitude, a stance, then the features that helped to produce that stance can be rejected. He brings abstractions about art down-to-earth using real or hypothetical examples.
Find it on Scholar. Considering the fact that art is a primary aesthetic phaenomenon, the book fails in my opinion to deliver a convincing answer about what makes a commonplace item, a piece of art. And it’s peppered with small funny little observations, like when people mistake describing a painting for a value judgement on it sure that story is dark, brooding, and ominous, but is it good?