In response to Kim...

In her blog Kim states, “Art cannot be determined by theory if theory is determined by art because the argument becomes circular. An interesting problem with many of these art theories is that they are based on the art of their time. People seem to try to fit the art that evolves into their time under a new theory of art which becomes outdated during the next evolution in art. “

I think this is one of the main problems each philosopher comes across when delving into the creation of a new theory for art.  Both concepts and art evolve with the passing of time, people grow in their abilities to understand and appreciate art, and new technologies allow for new possibilities in the creative processes of the Artworld. How, then, are we to sum up the entire Artworld in a single theory? 

Kim continues, “It would be intriguing to see someone anticipate directions in which art might go within their theory rather than limiting it to what is already known. This would be very difficult to do but might result in a theory that better stands the test of time.”  This is where I disagree.  With so many different versions/forms of ‘art’, I don’t think it is even possible to come up with a single theory in order to understand and explain the Artworld.  Clearly, as we’ve seen through inventions and the like, people can certainly “anticipate” where the Artworld may be in the next few decades; but, to know anything about a theory of the future that could “stand the test of time”? Seems like a daunting and near impossible task to me.

Art as self reflection

Danto points out a recognition of Hamlet regarding reflecting surfaces--"they show us what we could not otherwise perceive--our own face and form--and so art, insofar as it is mirrorlike, reveals to us ourselves, even by socratic criteria, of some cognitive utility after all."

Personally, I think this is the best explanation that any philosopher has given thus far in our reading. Maybe, this is THE definition of art. Look to any piece of art work (or what is considered art work) and when asking the artist what it is, they'll always have some explanation along the lines of either 1.it's a reflection/comment on society, 2.it's a look inward, or 3. it just is--the artist had no specific intentions but created whatever came to them. Focusing on this explanation of art, all works "reveal to us ourselves," whether consciously or subconsciously, they reveal some inner part of us (whether it be knowledge, feelings, etc.) to a wider audience, or even simply to ourselves.  It is oftentimes the case that people embark on creating a work in order to just get out that emotion/thought or to delve deeper into it in order to figure out exactly what it means--and typically, the work that results reveals some sort of answer.

Hamlet's reflection and Danto's quote bring to mind an image of a journey--the idea that it is the journey not the destination that holds the significance. While creating art, one travels down a path of figuring out a self revelation, some thought or emotion which, without this mirror of art, they wouldn't know how to articulate. Art provides creators with a voice to "show us what we could not otherwise perceive."

Do you agree? Is art about the journey more than the final destination?