Well, I have to say I don't see any material difference between what Warhol did and what Duchamp did all those years before. And, as I've mentioned previously, when I asked Danto about it, he could only come up with some comment about Warhol having more 'humour' (which seems very questionable to me anyway because if humour were the criterion and why would it be? I would have chosen Duchamp every time. After all, a urinal in an art show?)
So I have never been able to understand why Danto had to wait for Brillo Boxes to have his epiphany. But then I don't understand his epiphany anyway or, rather, I don't see it as an 'epiphany' worth having. This is all rank heresy, obviously. DA On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 9:54 PM, William Conger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Danto says that to reiterate his own epiphany upon > first seeing Warhol's boxes. But I think the idea is > easily traced to Duchamp: his statements, his work, > and his influence, his rejection of occular art and > emphasis on idea as paramount. Warhol extended the > idea to include the low art commonplace or iconic > cultural products. He was clear about it whereas > Duchamp still equivocated a bit by erasing the line > between anything and high art and implying that the > aesthetic could be projected by anyone to anything. > What Warhol erased was the aesthetic part. > > WC > > -- Derek Allan http://www.home.netspeed.com.au/derek.allan/default.htm
