Analysis of Danto's Historical-Hegelian Narrative of the Transfiguration of the Commonplace into Artwork

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 PhD Candidate of Philosophy of Art, Bu Ali Sina University, Iran

2 Associate Professor of Philosophy of Art Department, University of Allameh Tabataba’i, Iran

Abstract

Arthur Danto in order to achieve the definition of art, while rejecting previous views and clearly opposing the essentialism of the concept of art, seeks a new explanation in challenging contemporary artworks with a completely different view. By turning away from Kant's point of view, which dominated the theories of art until the middle of the 20th century, he bases his theory under the influence of Hegel and based on the historical context of the process of transfiguration of the ordinary object to an artwork. Based on this, a historical, cultural, and social context is necessary for the objects to acquire the legitimacy of being an artwork. From his point of view, a new narrative of an ordinary thing emerges through the artist's way of looking at the ordinary thing (in the historical context) and the way he presents it, and he transforms it into an embodied concept and meaning, which leads to the transformation into a work of art. The excessive emphasis of his theory on subjectivism causes personal interpretations and relativism. This article follows the question of “what makes a work of art, a work of art?”, by examining and explain Danto's opinions, while pointing to the works of art referred to by him, I try to describe the factors influencing his theory to finally analyze some of the flaws in this perception of the concept of art.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

Benjamin, W. (2008). The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility and Other Writings on Media, translated by E. Jephcott et al, pp. 19-55, Belknap Press.
Danto, A. C. (2004). Art, Philosophy and Philosophy of Art, Translated by S. Zolfaghari, The Quarterly Journal of Khyal, 9, 122-129. (In Persian)
Danto, A. C. (1981). The Transfiguration of the Commonplace: A Philosophy of Art, Harvard University Press.
Danto, A. C. (2016). What Art Is, Translated by F. Farnoodfar, Cheshmeh. (In Persian)
Descartes, R. (2013). Meditations on the First Philosophy, Translated by A. Ahmadi, Samt. (In Persian)
Freeland, C. (2018). But Is This Art? Translated by K. Sepehran, Markaz. (In Persian)
Gilmore, J. (2007). Inner Beauty, Symposium: Arthur Danto, Abuse of Beauty, Translated by F. Naserizadeh, The Quarterly Journal of Aesthetics, 16, 163-172. (In Persian)
Giovanelli, A. (2019). Aesthetics: The Key Thinkers, Translated by A. Maziar and et al, Lega. (In Persian)
Hegel, G. (1984). Introductory Lectures on Aesthetics, Translated by M. Ebadian, Avazeh. (In Persian)
Heidegger, M. (1977). The Origin of the Work of Art, Basic Writings, edited by D. Krell, Harper.
Houlgate, S. (2014). Hegel’s Aesthetics (The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy), Translated by G. Narimani, Qoqnoos. (In Persian)
Kant, I. (2014). Critique of Judgment, Translated by A. Rashidian, Ney. (In Persian)
Pegler, K. (2018). Big Questions in Aesthetics, Translated by M. Karami, Kargadan. (In Persian)
Sharifzadeh, M. R. & Bani Ardalan, I. (2013). Philosophical Analysis in Arthur Danto's Theory of Art World, The Quarterly Journal of Philosophical of Cognition, 69, 95-126. (In Persian)
Singer, P. (2000). Hegel, Translated by E. Fouladvand, Tarh-e-No. (In Persian)
Stern, A. (2016). Aboutness and Aura: Toward a Benjaminian Critique of Danto, The Journal of European Society for Aesthetics, 8, 471-479.
Tashakori, F. (2012). Ugliness and Beauty in Contemporary Works of Art Based on the Views of Arthur Danto, The Quarterly Journal of Aesthetics, 24, 102-113. (In Persian)
Send comment about this article
CAPTCHA Image
Journal of Philosophical Investigations
Volume 17, Issue 43 - Serial Number 43
Articles
2023
Pages 47-65

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics