Not at all heresy in my view!  A solid attack on smart
emptiness.  I think Danto's discovery is very thin,
the idea having been done by Duchamp (and a host of
others long before Warhol).  The only difference I can
find between D and W is that W (I'm sick of spelling
their names) is W's doing the trick with everyday
objects (and these too were "assisted readymades") but
intentionally devoid of "art" aesthetic identity and
exploiting the everyday design aesthetic of commercial
products whereas D left the issue of aesthetic value
open to the audience.  So with that tiny exception I
mainly agree with you.  

WC

 
--- Derek Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 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

Reply via email to