#2 - What Art Is Today

In this series of posts I attempt to express my views on art as they have been influenced by the philosophers I have studied. Although many of the ideas are directly connected to the ideas of these philosophers, it is often the case that my use of their concept is not quite in harmony with what they were originally claiming. One post each day will continue the discussion.

I think the best description of the way art is viewed in contemporary culture is described by Noel Carroll, but the concepts were first fleshed out by Danto and Dickie. Danto and Dickie both arrived at definitions of art that include the important role that an art world plays. They both note that for the largest chronological portion of art history men were operating under the imitation theory of art. Basically art was seen to be an imitation of something else and better imitations made for better art. According to Danto the sub-theories that make up imitation theory gave way to a reality theory under which artworks are viewed as new realities themselves rather than being copies of something else. This makes sense to my mind and I consider each work of art I make to be a new creation that often references other things that exist, but does so in a new way and is certainly not simply copying. It seems to me that even photography includes a selective process, a framing, and a recontextualization that makes its subjects into a two dimensional new reality. The subsequent popular idea (cited by Carroll and Dickie as coming from Weitz) that art has no specific conditions and cannot be defined is completely unacceptable to my mind. Surely the lack of some defining characteristics to a word limits its linguistic value. The concept effectively turns art into a meaningless joke.


Carroll and Dickie were able to give a definition that allows for new art forms to be added to the idea of art and thus does not limit the creativity and innovation that must necessarily be a part of art’s description. Carroll successfully described art as a cultural practice. I especially like his description of the way the theater has evolved as a cultural practice in which the actors and the audience both understand their roles and their relationship to the stage. I agree that art is a cultural practice. It then makes sense that those who are familiar with the practice would have the ability to determine what can or cannot be a part of the practice. This group is simply called “the art world.” It is made up of the many individuals that involve themselves with art. This would include artists, art collectors, critics, and museum curators among others. Because art is a cultural practice it is not surprising to see that some people are more influential than others at discussing and defining or introducing new concepts and that there are necessarily divisions among the various arts and styles.


Carroll’s description of the way new arts are introduced into the art world is logical. New art forms are compared against art forms that are already accepted in the canon of art through history. New forms can amplify, repeat, or repudiate ideas or forms that already exist. A member of the art world then would need to know something of the history of art to be able to make the comparison and accept or reject the new form. A narrative of the history of the cultural practice helps to describe why and how new art forms are indeed art. There is then an unlimited potential for innovation in a discipline that demands it. This idea makes so much sense to me because I have always found myself turning to the narrative of art history to describe surprising art concepts to those who scoff at them. It is important to note that this definition of art allows an artist to use any form that art has taken in known history. A painter could potentially paint representationally, abstractly, or make conceptual social references with a few words. There is a huge variety of art forms available to today’s artist under this theory. I agree with Carroll’s description of what art is today in our society. But although this definition helps me understand the view of art today, it doesn’t do much to help me form judgments of artworks, nor does it tell me why art should be important as anything more than a history lesson. To do that it is important to understand how art works or what art does.