Contemporary Art and Inability of Aesthetics-A. C. Danto's Philosophical Art History

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 경성대학교 인문과학연구소
· 수록지 정보 : 인문학논총 / 12권 / 2호 / 95 ~ 111페이지
· 저자명 : 이성훈

초록

This article attempts to trace the evolution of Danto's philosophy of art or philosophy of art history in terms of Warhol's Brillo Box. It could be said that Brillo Box had three distinct effects upon Danto. When Danto first saw Brillo Boxes at Stable Gallery in 1964, he, as an aesthetician, had an astonishing shock. This shock, which we could call Warhol-effect(I), concerned with the problem of definition of art, gave him a realization that only if we accept the principle of perceptual indiscernibility, it is possible to define art. Then, this ontological, that is, ahistorical definition of art has been supplemented or transformed by Warhol-effect(II), the problem of historical modalities. At the same time, Danto has showed a surprising theoretical change of welcoming Hegelian philosophy of history that he had dismissed as epistemologically invalid in the 1960s. The problem of historical modalities is what made Brillo Box possible in 1964 when it is clear that an object just like it could not have been a work of art at any earlier time, and the strong philosophy of art might ask: what made Brillo Box historically necessary in 1964? In quest of this question, Danto has realized that the mode of being of artwork as well as the philosophy of art is held hostage to history. With Danto's theoretical conversion to Hegelianism, Brillo Box came close to the core of his philosophy of art, and it was interpreted as a sign signalling the end of art or the end of art history. Danto reads Warhol-effect(III), that is, the end of art from the fact that contemporary artworks like Brillo Box finally became vaporized in a dazzle of pure thought.

참고자료

· 없음