As a philosopher who works on aesthetics and the philosophy of art, I am extremely grateful to be able to listen to these interviews and watch them too. Thank you for taking the trouble to make them and thank you to Professor Carroll for his wonderful work.
The idea that an ecstatic experience is related to pleasure is crazy. Pleasure enclose us within ourselves narrowing our field of consciousness, while ecstatic experience opens up ourselves toward the world and others in a way that is meaningful, awe inspiring and accepting of others differnces.
The importance of Andy Warhol's work? Robert Hughes, after meeting Warhol, said that he was one of the stupidest people he ever met. A man with nothing to say.
I defy anybody to show me what makes Pretentious Picasso a genius. He was a genius at fooling everyone like Trump is. Pretentious scholars all fall in line every generation with no courage or brains continue the myth. Art critiques are posers
This is a lot of pretentious nonsense. Peop[e trying to distinguish themselves as important scholars or thinkers. Another good explanation of what is being said is "BS" Art is in the Brain of the beholder. Has anybody learned anything here about art? What is art? Art is what I say it is. What is god?, What is love? Anybody needing intellectual explanations of art is missing the art of art. This all is meaningless.
I totally enjoyed this interview and it clarified so many concerns for me as an artist in the modern world. I seem to hang in between tradition, postmodernism and now I discovered post-historical art. Thank you for sharing these insights.
No, what Danto did was to apply the tools of critical analysis developed in the Western philosophical tradition to the work being produced by artists (especially Andy Warhol) at the time that he, Danto, was thinking and writing about this. His conclusions simply gave us a different way of understanding art - including all the art that began in the early Renaissance and ended with Warhol.
Brillo Box is NOT art, Warhole was a leading intellectual and socialite but an artist he was not, by a long stretch. You wipe your $, you take that, you put it in a frame and you call that art? That's the death of art alright.
17:07 “Requiring that you know something about something in order to appreciate it doesn’t seem to me to be élitist.” Knowing something about something in order to appreciate it is not a *requirement* but it’s _often _*_better_* to know something about something. Given the insight and thoughtfulness of Dr Carroll’s answers, that might constitute a rare, if not unique, misstep.
the only useful thing I got from all this is his distinction btetween art"s :meaning:or :purpose{. But insofar as describing anythingt Danto himself had to say about art, no [nsights were delivered here beside the point mentioned innfirst sentence/This entire hour mentione no othet discussable art-subject beside Warhol's Brillo Boxes.. WTF
I love listening to Noel Carroll... But this video could go without a series of distracting noises that I can't determine whether they are sirens from the street or some "conceptual addon" - I hope it is the first one. Apart from that, great quality! And I should say that making a video about this topic was just an excellent idea. It is a powerful idea: aesthetics is not a matter of some mysterious special "perception channel"... it is a matter of *form*, but form here is not just "surface appearance properties" but the concatenation of a diversity of elements, including meaningful, representational elements, including non-perceptual elements, within a frame set by the work's purposes. It is one of the most enlightening pieces I read about art in recent years (the paper where he presents his "heuristic"). The upshot is that there is no essential difference between artworks and any other artifacts.
A arte tem sido a tentativa de instigar e moldar as emoções de uma maneira que une as pessoas sob seu domínio e nelas inculca a noção de serem participantes de uma cultura
I have no idea who those people are, but I agree with everything he said. Once I heard a theory about the rise of modern art, it would be because the Soviet Union used "art" solely as a form of propaganda (the same thing those "historical critics" are trying to do). The USA anti-propaganda was saying that political propaganda in itself was a bad thing (although they had their propaganda, just look at Captain America). Rich people, feeling ashamed of funding blatant anti-communist propaganda, started funding modern art, because it was better the nothing about nothing than communist propaganda. Funny enough nowadays the left embrace modern art, which is as devoid of meaning as capitalism can get, and conservatives hate modern art because if it means nothing it is nothing but a waste of time. I don't know if any of this is true, but Arthur Danto was certainly onto something. I found this video because I don't believe photography is art, it is a technique about using a machine, if there is a real artist was the guy that made the machine. I was trying to find some support for this, and it seems Arthur Danton commented about the subject.
I'm not a huge fan of when people attempt to conflate Arthur Danto the philosopher with Arthur Danto the art critic: I think they should be examined independently. Love hearing Carroll talk though!
Wonderful interview. Can Brillo boxes be shown in anything other than reproductions of grocery stores in reptoductions of suburban neighborhoods? Certainly not in galleries. If the end of art then surely the end of art galleries...of a certain kind.
I knew him as a teacher privately and as a friend. We would see each other almost monthly from 1997 to 2013 at the time I moved with my wife Esther Pasztory after her retirement from Columbia to Maine, which Arthur knew, had visited quite often. I find it hard to speak about him even now he seems alive. I cannot find the words to speak of him as one would an abstraction.
