Danto and Contemporary Art.

In this week's reading, Johnson assigned us to read Arthur Danto and his theory of art. In the text, Danto questions how contemporary art is considered art and what makes that art an art object and it's real life object not art. To elaborate, in the introduction, Wartenberg writes, "How could a large painting consisting of nothing more than two large criss-crossing black brushstrokes on a white background be called art?"

The same question popped into my head when I visited Mass MoCa one afternoon. It was the first time I had ever gone to Mass MoCa and I was really excited. The entire experience was entertaining, for the most part, aside from one exhibit in particular. There was a room consisting of "modern art" but half the paintings in the room did not seem to be artistic to me at all. One of the paintings was just a canvas painted with white paint over and over again - to me, that doesn't qualify as art, it qualifies as persistence. Leaving Mass MoCa, I questioned why something as simplistic as that could be considered art, and apparently Arthur Danto had the same thoughts go through his mind when contemporary art was just coming into the forefront.

In the reading, Danto also questions what distinguishes an art object from the real thing that the artist used as a reference for the art object itself. He uses the example of Andy Warhol's Brillo Box - what makes the piece of artwork art, and the actual carton of soap pads not art? Why isn't the carton considered artwork if the painting is just a still life of that object? This question hasn't personally come into my mind at all through my years of taking art courses, but it certainly intrigues me.

My question is, "Danto claims that only someone who has studied art’s history has an “eye” for art. However, haven’t there been plenty of great artists in the past create great works of art without knowing the history?"