Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 2:13:28 — 122.3MB)
What effect should the avant garde have on our understanding of what art is? We read three essays by modern, first-rate American philosopher Arthur Danto, all published in The Philosophical Disenfranchisement of Art (1986): the title essay, “The Appreciation and Interpretation of Works of Art,” and “The End of Art.”
I understand you may not have heard of Danto, and you may think modern art is goofy, but you’ll definitely enjoy this discussion and the reading anyway. Danto gives a picture of philosophy and art at war throughout history: philosophy says that art can’t get at truth and is otherwise useless, yet philosophers like Plato seem afraid of the power of art to corrupt. What’s the deal?
Also, Danto claims that art is over; the end of art has happened. So suck it, artists. (Actually, artists can keep on doing what they’re doing; they’re fine, yet art is still over.) Plus, can you stare at a urinal and thereby make it art? What if it’s in a museum? Danto loves them crazy ass post-modern artists, and thinks that their work shows that art was not what we thought it was.
Plus, Seth talks about the plane crashing into the IRS building near his house, and we respond some listener postings.
This work is unfortunately not available free on the Internet, but is worth purchasing.
End song: “This Night Before the End,” by Mark Lint and the Simulacra, recorded mostly in 2000 but finished just now. Here’s more info about the song.
Five Stars after 100+ iTunes Ratings.
#1 by Jay Bailey on March 7, 2010 - 7:10 pm
With my undergraduate degree in fine art with a minor in philosophy and my MFA in painting, I found your discussion about Arthur Danto to be a fantastic introduction to P.E.L. I now teach in the art department at UNLV and can probably provide an interesting perspective on the ideas of the “end of art” and the art world as it relates to your discussion.
Danto was required reading in several seminar classes in graduate school. As an art maker this type of thinking and writing was problematic. A young art student can become too entrenched with theory and philosophy. Basically, it makes you think too damn much. It took me some time to purge the weight of how one paints now that art has met its end. I suppose it’s no different from a musician who learns scales, chords, and theory but then must learn to ignore his training and just play music. To hell with your theory, just make (or in music, play) something cool. Something to respond to. Something worth my precious, depleting time.
University art departments are becoming infected with philosophy. Many of my students are finding themselves too concerned with the ideas of critics and theorists, and sadly they are making art in response to those ideas. There is far too much art coming from young artists who are essentially demanding an audience with a background in aesthetics.
You guys have a great show. Keep it going. It reminds me of philosophy class. I miss all of that banter.
#2 by Getty Lustila on March 8, 2010 - 10:07 pm
This was an incredibly interesting podcast!
My interaction with Danto’s work has been chiefly through reading “Narration and Knowledge” (an expansion of his previous “Analytical Philosophy of History”), as a History undergraduate a couple of years back. While I was impressed with it, my lack of background in Aesthetics caused me to shy away from his writing on the Philosophy of Art. So needless to say, this was really great insight into that aspect of Danto’s philosophy.
I was also quite shocked to hear you talk briefly about Dr. Berry! I’m planning to attend Georgia State University in the fall to study Political/Continental Philosophy at the advice of my philosophical mentor (another UT-Austin Graduate) Joel Mann. I guess it is truly a small world.
Cheers and keep it up!
Getty Lustila
#3 by Mark Linsenmayer on March 9, 2010 - 10:52 am
Thanks, Jay!
I think I like your faces the best, e.g. http://www.jaybailey.com/restrainedordered.html.
#4 by Seth Paskin on April 6, 2010 - 10:17 pm
I like the idea of being ‘infected’ by philosophy.
Like the hantavirus.
Getty, don’t let lack of background ever stop you from inquiring. There’s no other way to get background.
#5 by Oliver Michaels on April 16, 2010 - 1:32 pm
Thank you so much for your discussion. I am an artist btw. I was really interested in developing a greater understanding of art through philosophy at art school. Though it is something I gave up on a few years after because I don’t find it easy to do the reading/thinking alone and besides I’m trying to feel these days instead of think, something it turns out I’m particularly bad at so it occupies a disproportionate amount of my time. But now my confused conception of what art is sits very much unresolved behind my practice and heckles my ego from the bleachers during my routine bouts of self-doubt… so it was good to listen to your discussion.
But I found myself really frustrated that you did not bring Heidegger into your discussion. I noticed that two of you are coming from a Phenomenological background and must know Heidegger discusses many of these issues in ‘The Origin of the Work of Art’ in a way that would have really pushed your discussion to, well, where I wanted it to take place.
I’d love to hear a second discussion that covered ‘Origin’ and the thinkers that responded to it in relation this Danto podcast. Please consider it.
#6 by Seth Paskin on April 17, 2010 - 9:32 am
Thank you Oliver, that’s an excellent suggestion. As we circle back to this topic, we will try and find a way to work in ‘Origin’.
–seth
#7 by Luke on May 13, 2010 - 11:27 pm
Hey guys, great podcast and a particularly great episode. I’m glad you’re doing so many dead philosophers because they are necessary for your listeners to understand the context within which modern philosophers work, but this episode on a living philosopher was your most exciting episode yet.
Your podcast is very substantive and also funny and fun to listen to – a very rare combination indeed.
I have my own podcast for which I interview philosophers, scientists, and historians (mostly about the two fields of philosophy most interesting to the layman: ethics and philosophy of religion), and I am very impressed by the quality of your work on ‘The Partially Examined Life’!
I look forward to your work on the pragmatists and I hope you will eventually have time to cover additional recent or living philosophers, especially: Quine, Lewis, Popper, Strawson, Rawls, Nagel, Nozick, Rorty, Davidson, Mackie, Hare, and… well, many others!
#8 by Mark Linsenmayer on May 20, 2010 - 10:36 pm
I just put forward the prospect of a Frege episode, and Seth audibly shuddered, saying “if we do that, they’ll expect us to go forward down the whole list of analytic philosophers!”
So we’ll do it, but not right away, and hence many of the ones in the line you list will probably not rear their heads until episode 65. (Hare?? I read some of him for an ethics paper I wrote in undergrad but never thought to chase him down for more… I do like Davidson, though, and Quine’s definitely on the list.)
#9 by Wes Alwan on May 17, 2010 - 4:03 pm
Thanks Luke — I think I’ve come across your site before. These guys are definitely on the list!
#10 by Nate on May 20, 2010 - 4:42 pm
First, a quick “thanks” for doing what you do. This is by far my favorite podcast. Entertaining and informative discussions. Outstanding text selection. I only wish you guys could do it more often…
Regarding The Philosophical Disenfranchisement of Art, do you think Danto is justified in concluding that “since Plato’s theory of art is his philosophy, and since philosophy down the ages has consisted in placing codicils to the platonic testament, philosophy itself may just be the disenfranchisement of art.” This generalization of philosophy seems to me a rather strange conclusion here. Is “philosophy itself” equivalent to the canon of philosophical texts?!? Overall I find his thesis quite brilliant, but I think this claim about philosophy itself is far too broad and ultimately misleading.
I wonder how much his thesis would be affected by substituting something like “the history of philosophy” for “philosophy itself,” considering that he argues from an historical perspective. The disenfranchisement of art still seems to hold as does the warranted criticism of historical philosophy, though perhaps he would not be able to make the same predictions about the fate of art and philosophy if the two disciplines are not linked in the way he describes. These predictions seem to rest on the idea that philosophy originates as a reaction to art.
So, maybe it would be better to simply ask, is it possible to do philosophy without Plato? If no, then Danto is certainly correct. If yes, then amending the argument (rather than discarding it) seems appropriate.
#11 by Mark Linsenmayer on May 20, 2010 - 10:33 pm
Now, Nate, if we recorded more often then YOU wouldn’t have time to read all of the texts along with us.
Danto is talking as a Hegelian, as in “the Spirit of philosophy,” referring to the dominant texts in history, like you suggest. Of course there are exceptions. This is like calling all philosophy phallocentric or whatever.
Second, I for one think this “the history of philosophy is a footnote to Plato” is a load of bunk. Plato did not have the conceptual apparatus to handle even a fraction of what debates are about today, and I can only point to the Theaetetus episode for evidence of that: I think it’s a significant stretch to think that, e.g. his long stretch about “How can there be false opinion?” is in any way relevant to modern epistemology. Wes would argue otherwise, I’m sure. As for art, many of the art forms we’re most concerned with didn’t even exist for Plato to react to.
#12 by Wes Alwan on May 21, 2010 - 1:56 pm
Yes, I would argue otherwise.
#13 by David Emerson on November 8, 2010 - 2:52 pm
Gentlemen,
I am still way behind your current episode in my listening, but I’m getting there! I enjoyed this podcast as well. Mark, I am particularly sympathetic to the pluralist riff that you brought to the discussion (via Danto). I recently enjoyed this TED talk from back in 2004 that suggests the “TRUTH” of these pluralistic ideas (http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/malcolm_gladwell_on_spaghetti_sauce.html). I thought you’d find it entertaining as well.
And, as a gratuitous suck-up, I enjoyed “This night before the end.” Good stuff!
Cheers,
David E.
#14 by Erroll Treslan on June 28, 2011 - 5:28 am
I would love to know what Danto thinks of Franco’s invisible art: http://bit.ly/l4gQJv
#15 by Seth Paskin on June 28, 2011 - 8:36 am
Why don’t you ask him? His email is on this page:
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/philosophy/fac-bios/danto/faculty.html
and I think he might be on FB.
–seth
#16 by Erroll Treslan on June 28, 2011 - 8:15 pm
Done.
#17 by Kyle on December 29, 2011 - 1:16 am
I wish I was armed with this podcast about 10 years ago before I went into Tate modern museum in London. One of the first vast rooms I went into had a giant rope on the floor. Not certain if it had any prior utility such as being attached to a large heavy anchor or something, but at any rate my reaction was contempt directed at the anonymous decision maker whom put the rope in the room and implicitly declared the rope to be art.
However, now armed with the knowledge that Art has been ‘vaporized’, and is not necessarily representational anymore; the shock is lessened. Indeed it seems that any Joe Blow can select an object and drag it into an art museum, and request an onlooker to ponder and try to ‘get at the meaning’ of the object placed. Indeed, it does seem like revenge upon the philosopher.
I am also surprised however that Seth was disillusioned (in the sense of Art as non-representational) by the art of picasso, Kandinsky, klimt, etc. Art had not vaporized into dragging urinals into museums in early 20th century. Symbolic and abstract art still inspire thought directed at representation rather than the essence of objects (urinals and ropes). I am of course mostly a dullard when it comes to Art, but even so can appreciate the difference between a Kandisnky and a urinal.
#18 by Seth Paskin on December 29, 2011 - 10:11 am
I don’t remember saying I was disillusioned by Picasso, et. al., only that I had a better understanding of modern art. I’m not going to relisten to the episode now, but if you want to tell me what I said, I’ll try and explain.
#19 by Kyle on December 29, 2011 - 4:07 pm
yep Seth, I guess I misquoted you (35:00). Basically you said you have a ‘misunderstanding’ of art in the 20th century. Picasso, Klimt (not so much) but Kandinsky, Miro, Pollock were problematic for you. However you stated that after reading the book you had insight as to why. And it appears related to the historical context of when the art was made. So correct me if Im wrong but you being critical of say the abstract works of later 20th century art is somewhat secondary to a misunderstanding of the art and its historical context. Does a misunderstanding of the art within its context affect your valuation of its aesthetics? I guess I picked up on this part because I correctly (or incorrectly) thought you may have been making an aesthetic judgment when the major thesis (carefully and clearly elucidated by you guys) of the book is about representational vs nonrepresentational art, the ending of history of Art, and poking philosopher with a stick by saying, OK you take over from here as now the purpose of urinal gazing is for you to get at its essence.
#20 by Seth Paskin on December 29, 2011 - 6:53 pm
So here’s the deal. A good part of my liberal arts education involved Art History, but only up to the Renaissance. When I was in school in Europe and traveling around, I went to tons of museums and saw 100s of Annunciations, sculpture, architecture, etc. I came to Romanticism and Impressionism honestly from that background. Going to high school around DC, I loved going to the National Gallery, but could never quite get a purchase on so called Modern Art – the stuff they put in the Museum of Modern Art. I understood symbolic, economic, political and aesthetic understanding of ‘non-Modern’ art, as well as having the ability to engage with a lot of historical art in a direct, experiential way.
I never had moving, direct, experiential relationships with painters like Pollack and Johns and only occasional flickers with a Miro, a cubist Picasso, Kandinsky. And I never learned how to interpret them along the lines I had been taught for other works. So I just kind of ignored them, being stuck at the turn of the century, much like I was stuck in the 80s for song long with my music tastes.
I was never critical, I just didn’t ‘get’ or ‘enjoy’ them. Danto’s book gave me a framework for understanding why I had so much trouble with modern art and why engaging with it was so different and, to me, more difficult than engaging with more traditional art. His thesis about the attempt to be non-representational – or more accurately – work out what that means, the notion of the art ‘world’ that self-references intent and the means of production, the (un)intentional exclusion of the uneducated or casual viewer all worked to keep me at a distance from basically most of what happened in the 20th century.
I feel like now I have a way of accessing that world – in a limited way – where I didn’t before. It’s still alien to me as an aesthetic experience compared to Chagall or Michelangelo, but there is something there now for me. Doing this podcast turned out to have a direct impact on my life recently, as I spent a wonderful couple of hours with my father in the modern wing of the Philadelphia Museum of Art, where we had a very moving experience with the permanent installation of Cy Twombly’s 50 Days at Iliam.
#21 by Joan Brown on December 30, 2011 - 10:21 am
Danto did the same for me (opening my eyes to what value may be found in modern art), as I also would question what aesthetic/artistic meaning a urinal could have!
I have spent many lovely hours in the Philadelphia Museum of Art, and the Modern Wing is not on my ‘top 5 favorite areas’ list (they would be: the Tea House, the Indian temple, the Great Stairway, the Impressionist Wing, and the fountain room by Van Gogh’s Sunflowers)
I will have to give it another look, with a different perspective.
Do you ever let fans of the podcast know when you are in a town? Be great to meet for conversation.
#22 by Tanad on January 21, 2012 - 10:50 pm
If you say ‘aesthetics was created in the 18th century’ and go on to say that then ‘the job of art goes from representing the world to representing beauty’ I think a few side notes are needed. For example if you look at Nadar and his Elevating Photography to the Height of Art, you get a great insight into the critical thinking and realisations that were occurring at that time. Where art may have had an archival function in the past, it was now being overtaken in this regard by technology of the time and therefore, as my secondary art school teacher used to say, ‘found itself out of a job.’ The point is that art needed to progress not only to find itself in some sense able to understand itself as autonomous, which I would think is an obvious advantage to, let’s generalise, most artforms, but also to understand itself as outside of a direct historical archival predetermined function and ultimately outside of the measured human sciences. I think it found its ‘taking place’ or position with regard to heterogenous forces and disciplines rather than becoming in some way introspectively, and when you consider this massive leap from record keeping to an autonomous mode of thinking or being, I don’t think Duchamp’s The Fountain, which wasn’t displayed as an actual urinal would be, sorry for being pedantic but I think it plays a part, you can see the evolution of thought inherent in the ‘industry.’ Furthermore, and I know from some of your comments during the show that you’d rather not talk about art, but I think it worth mentioning that Duchamp signed his name ‘R. Mutt’ and did not simply exhibit a urinal, he changed its position. While you may think this fatuous I’d have to add that the position and place of art, within its own method, ever since Baroque painting was extremely important, and also that the signing of the artist’s name, ever since arguably Gislebertus, was also of extreme importance, so that the ‘readymade’ was made ready by the artist who still assumed a kind of elite place in society, however this elite place was trying to find itself outside of the place of trade and industry in general, and this, as well as many other things, is what could be read into Duchamp’s work which makes it so beautifully unspecific and interpretable and what furthers art as being, excuse the term of phrase, post-representational.
Just as one further point I’d like to ask whether ‘causally useless’ is in fact a negative term?
Kind regards and thanks for the podcasts!
Tanad