free hit counter code After the End of Art: Contemporary Art and the Pale of History - GoBooks - Download Free Book
Ads Banner
Hot Best Seller

After the End of Art: Contemporary Art and the Pale of History

Availability: Ready to download

Over a decade ago, Arthur Danto announced that art ended in the sixties. Ever since this declaration, he has been at the forefront of a radical critique of the nature of art in our time. After the End of Art presents Danto's first full-scale reformulation of his original insight, showing how, with the eclipse of abstract expressionism, art has deviated irrevocably from the Over a decade ago, Arthur Danto announced that art ended in the sixties. Ever since this declaration, he has been at the forefront of a radical critique of the nature of art in our time. After the End of Art presents Danto's first full-scale reformulation of his original insight, showing how, with the eclipse of abstract expressionism, art has deviated irrevocably from the narrative course that Vasari helped define for it in the Renaissance. Moreover, he leads the way to a new type of criticism that can help us understand art in a posthistorical age where, for example, an artist can produce a work in the style of Rembrandt to create a visual pun, and where traditional theories cannot explain the difference between Andy Warhol's Brillo Box and the product found in the grocery store. Here we are engaged in a series of insightful and entertaining conversations on the most relevant aesthetic and philosophical issues of art, conducted by an especially acute observer of the art scene today. Originally delivered as the prestigious Mellon Lectures on the Fine Arts, these writings cover art history, pop art, "people's art," the future role of museums, and the critical contributions of Clement Greenberg--who helped make sense of modernism for viewers over two generations ago through an aesthetics-based criticism. Tracing art history from a mimetic tradition (the idea that art was a progressively more adequate representation of reality) through the modern era of manifestos (when art was defined by the artist's philosophy), Danto shows that it wasn't until the invention of Pop art that the historical understanding of the means and ends of art was nullified. Even modernist art, which tried to break with the past by questioning the ways of producing art, hinged on a narrative. Traditional notions of aesthetics can no longer apply to contemporary art, argues Danto. Instead he focuses on a philosophy of art criticism that can deal with perhaps the most perplexing feature of contemporary art: that everything is possible.


Compare
Ads Banner

Over a decade ago, Arthur Danto announced that art ended in the sixties. Ever since this declaration, he has been at the forefront of a radical critique of the nature of art in our time. After the End of Art presents Danto's first full-scale reformulation of his original insight, showing how, with the eclipse of abstract expressionism, art has deviated irrevocably from the Over a decade ago, Arthur Danto announced that art ended in the sixties. Ever since this declaration, he has been at the forefront of a radical critique of the nature of art in our time. After the End of Art presents Danto's first full-scale reformulation of his original insight, showing how, with the eclipse of abstract expressionism, art has deviated irrevocably from the narrative course that Vasari helped define for it in the Renaissance. Moreover, he leads the way to a new type of criticism that can help us understand art in a posthistorical age where, for example, an artist can produce a work in the style of Rembrandt to create a visual pun, and where traditional theories cannot explain the difference between Andy Warhol's Brillo Box and the product found in the grocery store. Here we are engaged in a series of insightful and entertaining conversations on the most relevant aesthetic and philosophical issues of art, conducted by an especially acute observer of the art scene today. Originally delivered as the prestigious Mellon Lectures on the Fine Arts, these writings cover art history, pop art, "people's art," the future role of museums, and the critical contributions of Clement Greenberg--who helped make sense of modernism for viewers over two generations ago through an aesthetics-based criticism. Tracing art history from a mimetic tradition (the idea that art was a progressively more adequate representation of reality) through the modern era of manifestos (when art was defined by the artist's philosophy), Danto shows that it wasn't until the invention of Pop art that the historical understanding of the means and ends of art was nullified. Even modernist art, which tried to break with the past by questioning the ways of producing art, hinged on a narrative. Traditional notions of aesthetics can no longer apply to contemporary art, argues Danto. Instead he focuses on a philosophy of art criticism that can deal with perhaps the most perplexing feature of contemporary art: that everything is possible.

30 review for After the End of Art: Contemporary Art and the Pale of History

  1. 5 out of 5

    David Williamson

    Philosophers tend to make the worst art theorist and artists tend to make terrible philosophers (or at least when they try to put it into language). Danto on the other hand has actually read art theory and criticism, so does actually know what he is talking about. This book had been sitting on my shelf for quite awhile, as I had grown sick of art theory and especially art/aesthetics philosophy. After being encouraged to read this however, I have taken a great interest in Danto’s work on art and p Philosophers tend to make the worst art theorist and artists tend to make terrible philosophers (or at least when they try to put it into language). Danto on the other hand has actually read art theory and criticism, so does actually know what he is talking about. This book had been sitting on my shelf for quite awhile, as I had grown sick of art theory and especially art/aesthetics philosophy. After being encouraged to read this however, I have taken a great interest in Danto’s work on art and philosophy (even if he is influenced by Hegel!) and do wish I had read this while at University, as I tend to agree with the majority of it. Danto’s book would have given me more confidence to stand my ground against art tutors (as they can be quite mean at Goldsmiths!), as well as validating my own theory of each new art medium (film, video, installation, computer, internet) tending to imitate the Modernist doctrine, before being institutional accepted (ie by the Museums), as in the tedious art video’s in the 80s and 90s discarding narrative or anything cinematic for themes and scenario on time, space and light, etc. All in the name to be taken seriously! This book will also answer most people’s queries on why art is like it is, why it has any value and why it will never return to its old values, or at least not in its former guise of painting landscapes and pretty flowers.

  2. 4 out of 5

    Jana

    I wouldn't say I "liked it," but it merits 3 stars because the ideas (though dated) are relevant for artists (as a record of what kind of muck we've since climbed out of). I continue to have difficulty with this sort of application of theory because it lends itself so easily to the purposes of those who spout fundamentalist dogma... what with the Puritanical fear of "pleasure" and a long list of dos and don'ts for artists. I saw so many artists stifled because they came to art through theory (ra I wouldn't say I "liked it," but it merits 3 stars because the ideas (though dated) are relevant for artists (as a record of what kind of muck we've since climbed out of). I continue to have difficulty with this sort of application of theory because it lends itself so easily to the purposes of those who spout fundamentalist dogma... what with the Puritanical fear of "pleasure" and a long list of dos and don'ts for artists. I saw so many artists stifled because they came to art through theory (rather than applying theory to art), which turned me off all theory for a time. That, and this sort of thinking was paralyzing my own art practice.

  3. 5 out of 5

    Peter Landau

    I don’t know about art, but I know when it’s dead. That’s not exactly what painter turned philosopher turned art critic Arthur C. Danto means in AFTER THE END OF ART: CONTEMPORARY ART AND THE PALE OF HISTORY. Art isn’t dead, but the historic narrative that we know of as art, what progressed over the last six hundred years or more, has come to an end. What’s next, according to Danto, is a philosophic art, more about ideas than materials. Just as the art before art, when it served a religious purp I don’t know about art, but I know when it’s dead. That’s not exactly what painter turned philosopher turned art critic Arthur C. Danto means in AFTER THE END OF ART: CONTEMPORARY ART AND THE PALE OF HISTORY. Art isn’t dead, but the historic narrative that we know of as art, what progressed over the last six hundred years or more, has come to an end. What’s next, according to Danto, is a philosophic art, more about ideas than materials. Just as the art before art, when it served a religious purpose, wasn’t art because it was defined as a means of faith. The art narrative that followed the sacred one ended, in Danto’s opinion, with the 1964 exhibition of Andy Warhol’s Brillo Boxes. Art was no longer visual in the sense that a trained eye could determine its value. There was no difference between Warhol’s Brillo Boxes and the boxes of Brillo lining the supermarket shelf. Art became about the question what is art? Even Duchamp, whose Fountain, a urinal signed and mounted on a museum wall, and considered a precursor to art as idea, is really more about aesthetics. The Pop artists and those that followed were untethered from the history of art and therefore no longer had to abide by the rules. Maybe that’s why some have such a hard time understanding contemporary art. It’s often cerebral or just chaotic, a movement without a center, coming at you from every direction and just as you think you’ve got a bead on it, another piece flies by from a different angle. It’s art, yes, but it’s not fully processed by the senses, as art in the past had been. Danto isn’t dismissive. He’s a fan of Warhol, and he highlights some artists who successfully make art after the end of art. A lot of them are making interesting work. Maybe I’m a traditionalist or conservative or just old-fashioned but I’m suspect of philosophy and its playground of the mind. While I can appreciate much contemporary art, it’s always the material-based works that rely less on ideas than lines that I follow. Ideas are great, but are the art? I don’t know. Ideas come and they go, but mostly they hide behind something, even words, and feel removed and distant. I’m not against ideas, but I think of art as more, as creative expression beyond ideas. Art is failure, while ideas tend to serve a purpose or an agenda. Not always, but more often than not. I prefer an expression beyond the artist’s reach than ends in defeat, not an idea that is obscured by its execution. Who is that speaking to? Museums, mostly, and collectors, galleries, the so-called “blue-chip” artists. Art has been a marketplace for a long time, but now ideas are making that market even more exclusive. I’m not rejecting contemporary art. That would be impossible. It’s too eclectic. There’s something for everyone. Perhaps it’s best to give up narratives, which like history are just a construct that has little to do with reality. The end of art is only just a little over 50 years old. We’re likely in a transitional period or we’ve landed somewhere else as yet undiscovered. Who knows, until the insightful mind of a future Danto comes to map it, because art appears closer in the rearview mirror.

  4. 4 out of 5

    Gastjäle

    When I read about Hegel's brilliant though cruelly rigid aesthetic philosophy, I was convinced that art needs to be defined somehow - otherwise it would be an empty concept for lazy thinkers. But now that I've read this fabulous work by Danto, I hesitate in my thoughts. Obviously, I still think that there's no use of a concept that's not exclusive, yet there are other things to be taken into consideration here: what is to be excluded and based on which criteria? Like other works on aesthetics (I When I read about Hegel's brilliant though cruelly rigid aesthetic philosophy, I was convinced that art needs to be defined somehow - otherwise it would be an empty concept for lazy thinkers. But now that I've read this fabulous work by Danto, I hesitate in my thoughts. Obviously, I still think that there's no use of a concept that's not exclusive, yet there are other things to be taken into consideration here: what is to be excluded and based on which criteria? Like other works on aesthetics (I think the term applies in this case as well, even though Danto preferred the term "art criticism" in its stead), After the End of Art is ultimately based on the author's feeling of what is art. What's striking about Danto is that the work is not based on the feeling of what art is not. In contradistinction to, for instance, Hegel's sweeping systematicism, Ruskin's poetry and Bell's somewhat fanatic manifestos, Danto appears as a thoughtful, critical and considerate philosopher/art critic, who manages to temper his emotional appreciation of art with careful analysis. And like a post-modern philosopher, he no longer sees that he is working alone, but rather he's but part of the great canon of the history of thinking, and he is not loth to have recourse to other's help and ideas. It is an unqualified pleasure to read something that feels so genuinely open-minded yet calculating - a rara avis in sooth! But the great problem here is that Danto doesn't provide any satisfactory definition for art; he merely wants to enfranchise it and let it thrive as multiform as possible. By proclaiming the end of master narratives and manifestos in art and thus letting it branch out where it list, he definitely appears more of an appreciator of art than the likes of Bell, but at the same time I see another problem incoming: another problem of discernment. That is: how to differentiate between a dishonest parody and a bona fide work of art? Danto himself would probably have recourse to art criticism, which would in turn sleuth into the life of the artist in question and bring the required information to light, but in this there are at least two difficulties: 1) what is the kind of information that is required in order to pronounce something art and 2) even the fact that the eye of the most refined dilettante cannot discern the genuineness of an artwork is bound to diminish the importance/credibility of art in the eyes of the public. Contemporary art becomes a joke, it becomes something so obviously ludicrous that it either gives rise to wry smiles of amusement (a mere superficial reaction) or incredulous snorts of derision - derision that hasn't got one ounce of profundity in it; it is simply disillusionment mixed with boredom. The public perspective crept into my review quite insidiously, but it was also treated at length in Danto's book. It was pointed out that, following the ideas of Warhol, anyone could be an artist and anything could be art - with the emphasis on the modal auxiliary verb. I think there's a slight discrepancy between Danto's idea of enfranchisement and his espousing of art criticism as the main means to understand contemporary art: the moment the underlying ideas of such a theory on art are revealed, the less an interesting thing it becomes to figure out the extra-perceptual matters of artworks - in fact, it becomes merely the pastime of the dilettantes. In addition, I think that underscoring the philosophical dimensions of contemporary art (i.e. it concentrating on commenting on what art is) seems to treat the topic as an endless well of fascination instead of a philosophical problem to be solved - many is the time when I've heard gallery-goers smile and go: "Oh yeah, that could be art too! Very interesting." That's simply novelty, it has nothing to do with philosophical inquiry. Now, I really like the idea that art is much more variegated than it was back in the age of narratives. But I abhor the idea of art becoming a hazy commentary on itself, or something that actually insists on fixing the experiencer's attention to extra-artistic things instead of the work in question. That kind of setting, in my opinion, inevitably leads to an endless series of ARTIST: "What ho! Here's some art, as well!" CRITICS: "Righto!" PUBLIC: "Righto!" ARTIST: "Righto!", with plenty of works that seek to address different political issues, without figuring out whether such things could also be done in print instead. But! plenty of what Danto points out here is endlessly fascinating and inspiring. Though I dislike the intimation that art criticism would be a way to figure out whether something is art or not (in fact, it's preposterous and, like the institutional theory on art seems to do, merely hedges the actual definition of art), the way he laid out the purpose of art criticism is eye-opening: the critics can point out things which the eye cannot see, in addition to the things an inexperienced peeper probably cannot zoom in on. If any of this information manages to personally deepen my understanding of a work of art, I'll gladly accept it. Before reading this work, I kind of thought art criticism a nice extra at best, an unholy intrusion on my perceptive abilities at worst, but now I'm glad to accept, that there are some extra-perceptual dimension to art that are very valuable. After all, like Danto often points out, there is no art without history and thus the historical context which has the use of the artistic expression, not simply the manner that can be employed post facto. The idea of the Artworld is something I'm willing to underwrite without hesitation. Works of art are always connected to each other, and modify each other in turn. This seems like a truism in terms of chronological perspective, but what really struck me was the fact that newer works also, legitimately, affect the older. I wasn't quite sure how I should react when reading older works and thinking in terms of the new ones; I felt like it was wrong - yet this ingenious idea of the Artworld actually gave me courage to open the gates and let the modern spirit in, to see what kind of havoc/pleasure it yields. Another good point of the Artworld is that each work of art does not modify the others in a fixed manner: classics, for example, do so with more power than fresh works. This, of course, leads to another set of questions, but in principle is rings true to me. Ultimately, the fineness of the idea comes from the vertiginous realisation of the interconnectedness of human artistry - with no permission asked from the artist. (The whole concept has a whiff of Hegelian idealism in it, but I'm glad to accept it as a poetic idea, not as an idea proper.) Another great point was how Danto pointed out the importance of the place and theme of exhibition. It truly does affect the way anything is viewed or experienced. The theme of the exhibition, the concert setlist, the bands in the bill... they all intimate how the organisers want you to think of certain works of art or at least how they think about them. This might not be a grand revelation for many, but I feel I've always left that avenue of discovery untrodden. *** So, in the end, this book was an eye-opener. In a more profound way than I could express in a GR review at the moment - or ever. It was intellectually frustrating and awe-inspiring at the same time, and it raised some essential points in aesthetics like no other word has done in my personal experience. And not least of all, it offered countless anecdotes and examples about art (especially contemporary art), which were a thrill to read. You got my fiver in a flash, D!

  5. 5 out of 5

    JabJo

    Reading this book was like having an enjoyable late night coffee with a friend, back-and-forthing about art till the wee hours. Mind you, a friend with a pretty elevated philosophical vocabulary; but still, it didn’t feel didactic, dogmatic, or even argumentative. The author offers his opinions and explains his reasoning, the idea being that it’s not really art that’s dead, but that there’s been a big change in how we see and what we define as art. Context and the historical/cultural point of vi Reading this book was like having an enjoyable late night coffee with a friend, back-and-forthing about art till the wee hours. Mind you, a friend with a pretty elevated philosophical vocabulary; but still, it didn’t feel didactic, dogmatic, or even argumentative. The author offers his opinions and explains his reasoning, the idea being that it’s not really art that’s dead, but that there’s been a big change in how we see and what we define as art. Context and the historical/cultural point of view make all the difference. A good example would be the chapter on ‘monochrome’ art: various artists who have painted a square canvas in one solid colour--and there have been quite a few over different periods in art. But because they’ve done it for very different reasons, you can’t define the square monochromes as one single style, any more than a skinny-man Giacometti sculpture isn’t in the same category as a skinny-man tribal African sculpture. The first couple of chapters are a bit of a slog and often a bit repetitious—he explains his idea, then keeps rephrasing it (Ok, I got it the first time!) and I didn’t know if I’d keep on, but he warms up as he goes, illustrating his ideas with examples and interesting personal speculations. It always felt as though he would be interested to hear other people's ideas. In the end, I really did feel as if I’d had a good conversation with an art-loving friend.

  6. 5 out of 5

    Michael

    As I recall, a great book despite my predilection to not really give a crap about some deep, brooding, probing interrogation about a freakin' Rothko painting or, God forbid, yet another Calder sculpture. Perhaps my disinterest is due to my status as redneck...or perhaps, as Danto's writing speculates, it's because of the destruction of some type of "master narrative" that essentially provides(ed) certain, unnamed boundaries within which to evaluate "art". Interestingly, he eschews a common formu As I recall, a great book despite my predilection to not really give a crap about some deep, brooding, probing interrogation about a freakin' Rothko painting or, God forbid, yet another Calder sculpture. Perhaps my disinterest is due to my status as redneck...or perhaps, as Danto's writing speculates, it's because of the destruction of some type of "master narrative" that essentially provides(ed) certain, unnamed boundaries within which to evaluate "art". Interestingly, he eschews a common formula of Warhol+Brillo Boxes = end of art tradition (nor even Duchamp's urinal), by personally choosing some Lichenstein comic strip-cum-painting published in a mid-fifties art journal. Whatever the case, he makes a compelling "narrative" for how art is now basically in a vacuum, only occasionally grounded by whatever socio-politico statement it may wish to proffer or, more often, a work simply relies on the Clement Greenburg criticized "far-out" aspect. My enthusiasm likely rests with the fact that most art, say, post-cubism or post-mid-Mondrian has usually failed to elicit in me anything beyond museum fatigue, and here, Danto constructs an argument that appeared to parallel and/or support my nausea with all of this flag-in-the-toilet and paper-mached-sidewalk-cow jazz. But, then again, I'm just a redneck...

  7. 4 out of 5

    James

    This is where Danto discusses his version of Hegel's "end of art" thesis. He first enunciated the thesis in a 1984 essay called "The End of Art", and developed it more recently in this work. To explain this thesis it may help first to say what Danto does not mean by it. He is not claiming that no-one is making art anymore; nor is he claiming that no good art is being made any more. But he thinks that a certain history of western art has come to an end, in about the way that Hegel suggested it wo This is where Danto discusses his version of Hegel's "end of art" thesis. He first enunciated the thesis in a 1984 essay called "The End of Art", and developed it more recently in this work. To explain this thesis it may help first to say what Danto does not mean by it. He is not claiming that no-one is making art anymore; nor is he claiming that no good art is being made any more. But he thinks that a certain history of western art has come to an end, in about the way that Hegel suggested it would. He summarizes that history as follows: "...the master narrative of the history of art--in the West but by the end not in the West alone--is that there is an era of imitation, followed by an era of ideology, followed by our post-historical era in which, with qualification, anything goes. . . .In our narrative, at first only mimesis [imitation] was art, then several things were art but each tried to extinguish its competitors, and then, finally, it became apparent that there were no stylistic or philosophical constraints. There is no special way works of art have to be. And that is the present and, I should say, the final moment in the master narrative. It is the end of the story" (AEA p.47).

  8. 4 out of 5

    E. C. Koch

    I first ran into Danto when writing my thesis on post-modern film and have returned to him as a supplement to Gaddis' JR and The Recogniitons in hopes of finding answers to some of the questions Gaddis raises about art in those novels. And that search has been both successful and not. Danto's grand concept here is that art (he means paintings mostly) follows an historical narrative which is carried along by culture, and that, with the advent of Warhol, art reached the end of that narrative. So w I first ran into Danto when writing my thesis on post-modern film and have returned to him as a supplement to Gaddis' JR and The Recogniitons in hopes of finding answers to some of the questions Gaddis raises about art in those novels. And that search has been both successful and not. Danto's grand concept here is that art (he means paintings mostly) follows an historical narrative which is carried along by culture, and that, with the advent of Warhol, art reached the end of that narrative. So we're now (now being 1995) in what he calls the post-historical art period (what I would have called post-modernism) but that all that's left to arise is the next grand narrative. What constitutes art is a far trickier nut to crack (and is the crux on my current line of questioning about art which got me here in the first place), and the answer Danto provides is that it depends on context and the intentions of the artist (with a lot of clarification in between). Overall, I thought this was insightful and illuminating (if the slightest bit dated, and even if he very infrequently mentioned lit. or film) and makes a great follow-up to The Recognitions.

  9. 4 out of 5

    Bill Gusky

    Seminal. You need this book.

  10. 4 out of 5

    Kate

    Changed entirely how I think about art. It started me thinking for myself.

  11. 4 out of 5

    Camila

    Ok. El libro va de cómo el arte “termina” y del arte, que en realidad ya no sería arte porque esto ya terminó, que empieza cuando termina el arte. Se entendió? Personalmente creo que esta teoría es muy cierta, pero los términos usados son un tanto fatalistas, o no son los mas adecuados. Bien podría decirse que el relato del arte terminó, mas no el arte en sí. O que el arte cambio su forma de moverse dentro del discurso histórico, dejo de ser lineal para convertirse en espontáneo. Pero volviendo Ok. El libro va de cómo el arte “termina” y del arte, que en realidad ya no sería arte porque esto ya terminó, que empieza cuando termina el arte. Se entendió? Personalmente creo que esta teoría es muy cierta, pero los términos usados son un tanto fatalistas, o no son los mas adecuados. Bien podría decirse que el relato del arte terminó, mas no el arte en sí. O que el arte cambio su forma de moverse dentro del discurso histórico, dejo de ser lineal para convertirse en espontáneo. Pero volviendo a la teoría. Si, creo que esta teoría es muy cierta. El arte ya no puede entenderse como se entendía en la antigüedad según nos lo explicaba Vasari, a pesar que esa línea que llevaba el arte sirvió durante mucho tiempo, aún después de la muerte de Vasari, pero hubo algo que de repente rompió con esta historia lineal y consecuente del arte para volverse un cereal de Lucky Charms de diferentes formas y colores. Que fue lo que pasó? Los impresionistas son ese parte aguas que desemboco en el plato de cereal. Comenzaron sacrificando la pintura mimética por la no mimética. La pincelada que antes se escondía se hizo obvia para que se viera que se hablaba de un pintura como tal, no una representación de la realidad, si no un objeto (un lienzo con capas de pintura sobre el) con una intensión. Entonces viene el modernismo, que es identificado por este nuevo nivel de consciencia que adquieren los artistas, eso hace que el relato histórico pierda su continuidad. Ya no solamente copian si no que lo hacen intencionalmente, desde un punto de vista subjetivo y desde una intensión precisa. Esta subjetividad hizo que cada artista o grupo de artistas tomara su propio rumbo; por otro lado, se buscaba dar un sentido a cada discurso artístico, y estamos hablando de un tiempo problemático en la historia del mundo, estos artistas habían vivido la guerra, si no en primera persona como un espectador, y esta experiencia afecta a cualquiera, aún mas a estos personajes cargados de sentimientos e ideas. Aquí es cuando aparecen las vanguardias, el expresionismo abstracto, que termino alrededor de 1962, el dada, que critica el punto de vista del mundo, el pop y su nueva felicidad espontánea, el cubismo que quiere abarcar todo, el futurismo con su grito de guerra, etc. Todas estas vanguardias tiene un punto de vista diferente del mundo, y todos estos artistas quieren expresarlo. Ya van viendo los Lucky Charms? Se rompieron todos los limites, en la época de los sesentas los artista llevaron cada estilo artístico a su limite, y estos limites fueron cediendo hasta el punto de seguir creyendo que lo que se hacia, seguía siendo arte. Entonces es cuando entra la filosofía en el arte. Lo visual dio paso a lo filosófico al grado de ya no ser necesario un objeto para ser arte, el mero concepto filosófico hace el arte posible. Es entonces cuando los artistas se liberan y pueden hacer lo que quieran, aquí comienza el todo se vale. Nace el neoexpresonismo, el performance, arte objeto, arte sin objeto también, landart, arte abyecto, arte porno, etc. etc. etc… Si se quiere saber que es arte, uno no debe de buscar en la experiencia sensible si no en el pensamiento. Y es aquí donde Danto dice que muere el arte. Porque ya no hay una línea en la historia. Antes se podía pensar que se paso de la mera representación iconográfica a una representación mas real para después dar paso a la perspectiva, entonces inicia la ilustración y el hombre siente que es el centro del mundo y nace el Renacimiento y en la época de la Revolución Francesa los artistas empiezan a pintar la añoranza de otros tiempos, etc. etc. A lo que voy es que con cada paso que el mundo daba, esto se veía reflejado en el arte, como quien dice, era consecuente, iban de la mano, y entonces se pierde esta idea lineal y es como si muriera el arte (según Danto). Por eso digo que si, si creo que hubo un cambio radical de cómo se veía y entendía el arte antes a ahora, pero lo que murió fue este relato, mas no el arte. Según mi punto de vista, se accedió a un nuevo arte. Y bueno el libro también habla del papel que toman los museos dentro de esta trágica muerte, de la política dentro del arte y de cómo hacer una crítica a las obras en la era después del fin del arte. Me gusta la forma en la que esta escrito, es mas un dialogo con el autor que un ensayo filosófico, hace muy accesible la lectura a pesar de los términos e ideas filosóficas que se tratan dentro.

  12. 4 out of 5

    Stefani Tiff

    Danto was insightful and in many cases quite humorous which made the book far from boring but rather undeniably enjoyable. Favorite quote: “I do not think it possible to convey the moral energy that went into this division between abstraction and realism, from both sides, in those years. It had an almost theological intensity, and in another stage of civilization there would certainly have been burnings at stake.”

  13. 5 out of 5

    John Arnold

    Some understandable, some over my head. He gets into philosophy (Hegel). It was worthwhile to read.

  14. 4 out of 5

    Özge Günaydın

    Konu çok dağınık anlatılmış ama modern sanata bakış açısından faydalı Evet bence de sanat bitti Bundan sonrası felsefik sembolizm

  15. 5 out of 5

    Rita do Monte

    I believe I put too many expectations on that book. Maybe it's a little overrated, and Danto wasted too much time with Greenberg. But still, it is a good book.

  16. 5 out of 5

    Samuel

    Art keeps me going, not “interests”.

  17. 5 out of 5

    Robert

    Did my sister give this to me? I don't know how I got hold of it. I was very interested in some version of Art History for a little bit. Something close to the version (or vantage) that makes art itself look an awful lot like art history. Or maybe a philosophy professor recommended it. Anyways. As I recall, Danto basically argues that art after the "postmodern" period should be termed post-historical -- art after the "end" of art (history). That postmodern art was the last art that paid (live or Did my sister give this to me? I don't know how I got hold of it. I was very interested in some version of Art History for a little bit. Something close to the version (or vantage) that makes art itself look an awful lot like art history. Or maybe a philosophy professor recommended it. Anyways. As I recall, Danto basically argues that art after the "postmodern" period should be termed post-historical -- art after the "end" of art (history). That postmodern art was the last art that paid (live or relevant) reference to its antecedents. That art after the postmodern period is arguably characterized by an absence of historical reference -- or at least one of any urgency or immediacy. As in, "oh what else is there to say about any of the -isms?" Except, well, maybe just to say "here is some art that doesn't concern itself with any antecedents -- and well maybe this is arguably concerning itself with postmodernism. Anyways, it could also be art that says "the history of art is irrelevant at this point." I've probably remembered this wrong. I liked thinking about these things at the time. Still do.

  18. 5 out of 5

    Duncan Greer

    A great read for understanding contemporary art from a philosophical point of view. Danto's view on Greenberg's Kantian influence is great, and he makes interesting arguments for a robust understanding of Warhol and Pop Art. It is a bit redundant but, as it was originally a lecture, that sort of thing is to be expected. The "End of Art" thesis is a bit hokey but also a handy way to explain the plurality of art after Pop. Also, Danto's Hegelian view of art history is surprisingly brilliant. All i A great read for understanding contemporary art from a philosophical point of view. Danto's view on Greenberg's Kantian influence is great, and he makes interesting arguments for a robust understanding of Warhol and Pop Art. It is a bit redundant but, as it was originally a lecture, that sort of thing is to be expected. The "End of Art" thesis is a bit hokey but also a handy way to explain the plurality of art after Pop. Also, Danto's Hegelian view of art history is surprisingly brilliant. All in all, and interesting read.

  19. 4 out of 5

    Arturo Javier

    No hay mucho que pueda añadir a lo que ya ha sido dicho por otros lectores. El libro es lectura esencial para cualquiera que esté interesado en el arte contemporáneo. La tesis principal del libro es que, a partir de los años sesenta, el mundo del arte ha entrado en una etapa poshistórica. La característica principal que define esta etapa es la ausencia de grandes narrativas que le den un sentido de dirección al desarrollo del arte. Danto es claro y riguroso, pero ello no le impide abordar una va No hay mucho que pueda añadir a lo que ya ha sido dicho por otros lectores. El libro es lectura esencial para cualquiera que esté interesado en el arte contemporáneo. La tesis principal del libro es que, a partir de los años sesenta, el mundo del arte ha entrado en una etapa poshistórica. La característica principal que define esta etapa es la ausencia de grandes narrativas que le den un sentido de dirección al desarrollo del arte. Danto es claro y riguroso, pero ello no le impide abordar una variedad inmensa de temas.

  20. 5 out of 5

    Faedyl

    Este libro lo leo y releo en ocasión de mis trabajos de la facultad, asi que doy por concluida esta lectura . Es un gran libro, aunque una de las muchas formas que hay hoy de pensar el arte contemporáneo, siempre lo encuentro lleno de sentido. Algunos otros autores le han criticado bastante pero para mi, esos son minimos detalles para una sólida postura que entiendo, es claramente visible en la tendencia del arte actual.

  21. 5 out of 5

    Vanessa

    so the arts are contently changing and i guess we need to categorize these occurrences with essays and philosophies and magazines and philosophical essays in magazines. if it is a good thing then Danto is pretty alright. This is an open minded approach to the often closed minded field of art philosophy littered with manifestos and rules and haters. fuck the haters.

  22. 4 out of 5

    Melek

    DNF at somewhere around page 200. The use of language makes the book hard to understand and boring and the information in it basically useless, because trying to read it makes you all sleepy. I might finish it some other day.

  23. 5 out of 5

    Maximus

    Epitome of modern academia... too much classification and long-winded 'intellectual' bloviation, not enough critical, artistic insight. Also virtually every hypothesis is either wrong, or treated in the wrong light.

  24. 5 out of 5

    Raymond

    Why is modernism over and what defines post-modernism in contemporary art. A key text to understanding how art got to where it is today. I took off a star because Danto can be repetitive in his arguments.

  25. 4 out of 5

    kate

    Essential reading for anyone who is disillusioned with, critical of, or just generally confused by art in a postmodern era. (Specifically for me, Danto's chapter on monochrome painting.)

  26. 4 out of 5

    Kathie

    Danto! I love Danto! And not only because I love to say his name...try it.

  27. 5 out of 5

    Juana

    yes darling, but is it art

  28. 4 out of 5

    Kasperskyantivirussupport

  29. 5 out of 5

    Sharlon

  30. 5 out of 5

    Jizeyu

Add a review

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Loading...
We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy.