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?"

Response #12.

In her blog, Skyla asked, "Do you think the body is a blank canvass for self-expression or should people respect their natural selves and leave expression to painting, writing, sculpting and other forms of creating tangible art objects?"

I wholeheartedly believe that the boy is a blank canvas used for self-expression. I'm sure I've made similar posts in the past (I've always been drawn to these questions, haha), but it's one of the stronger opinions of mine that I uphold. I've always been a supporter of tattoos and piercings - I only have one piercing and one tattoo thus far (however, hopefully that's soon to change), but I believe that the existence of tattoos and piercings in the United States is still a slightly taboo subject, as evident by the ban of visible tattoos and piercings in the workplace.

This is the way I think of it, though... what makes the human body different from other canvases or foundations of art? Painting has its upholstered canvas, writing has its paper, sculpting has its stone, photography has its film, etc. Why can't the human body itself be a foundation for a work of art, if it isn't considered a work of art already? I consider the body to already be a work of art, it's a miracle how the body works on its own with all of its intertwining of systems. But that's besides the point. As much as I love the natural form and things being naturally on its own, I do believe that our bodies were meant to be a canvas also, it's too amazing of an organ to not want to experiment with it. The way that our skin happens to stretch far more than our minds are able to comprehend, how even when hanging from two hooks inserted into the skin, our bodies manage to stretch and retain its equilibrium. Our bodies were meant to be played with, and we're all unique individuals, so why not alter ourselves as we wish?

My question is, "Do you believe in the phrase 'art for the sake of art' or does there always have to be a deeper meaning to a piece of artwork?"