BENEATH MEANING, ORIENTATIONAL NARRATIVES, AND DANTO'S ESSENTIALIST THEORY OF ART: ON NOËL CARROLL'S ELUCIDATIONS AND CONTESTATIONS

IF 1.1 2区 历史学 Q1 HISTORY
EKIN ERKAN
{"title":"BENEATH MEANING, ORIENTATIONAL NARRATIVES, AND DANTO'S ESSENTIALIST THEORY OF ART: ON NOËL CARROLL'S ELUCIDATIONS AND CONTESTATIONS","authors":"EKIN ERKAN","doi":"10.1111/hith.12342","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>In this review of Noël Carroll's <i>Arthur Danto's Philosophy of Art: Essays</i>, I focus on the issue of Danto's philosophy of art history and Carroll's position that, unlike Danto, we ought to understand Danto's “end of art (history)” thesis as an orientational narrative (that is, a pragmatic-instrumental narrative with cognitive purchase) rather than as a historical-scientific narrative. In making this case, I show how Carroll's argument demonstrates that Danto's “end of art (history)” thesis is in tension with Danto's philosophy of history. Furthermore, I engage and respond to the most substantive critiques that Carroll proffers in this text, especially as they concern Danto's philosophy of art history and the related issue of Danto's (art) historically anchored search for a definition of art. In giving special attention to the socio-historical background conditions (namely, “the artworld” conditions) for an object to be conferred art status, I also show how Carroll's incisive reading offers a critical rejoinder to claims made by recent critics such as Robert B. Pippin and Ivan Gaskell, who have dehistoricized Danto's definition of art, claiming that it allows for any artist to enfranchise any object as an artwork, proper.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":47473,"journal":{"name":"History and Theory","volume":"63 2","pages":"240-258"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"History and Theory","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hith.12342","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In this review of Noël Carroll's Arthur Danto's Philosophy of Art: Essays, I focus on the issue of Danto's philosophy of art history and Carroll's position that, unlike Danto, we ought to understand Danto's “end of art (history)” thesis as an orientational narrative (that is, a pragmatic-instrumental narrative with cognitive purchase) rather than as a historical-scientific narrative. In making this case, I show how Carroll's argument demonstrates that Danto's “end of art (history)” thesis is in tension with Danto's philosophy of history. Furthermore, I engage and respond to the most substantive critiques that Carroll proffers in this text, especially as they concern Danto's philosophy of art history and the related issue of Danto's (art) historically anchored search for a definition of art. In giving special attention to the socio-historical background conditions (namely, “the artworld” conditions) for an object to be conferred art status, I also show how Carroll's incisive reading offers a critical rejoinder to claims made by recent critics such as Robert B. Pippin and Ivan Gaskell, who have dehistoricized Danto's definition of art, claiming that it allows for any artist to enfranchise any object as an artwork, proper.

意义之下、定向叙事和丹托的艺术本质论:关于诺埃尔-卡罗尔的阐释与争论
在这篇对诺埃尔-卡罗尔(Noël Carroll)的《阿瑟-丹托的艺术哲学》(Arthur Danto's Philosophy of Art:在这篇对诺埃尔-卡罗尔(Noël Carroll)的《阿瑟-丹托的艺术哲学:随笔》(Arthur Danto's Philosophy of Art: Essays)的评论中,我重点讨论了丹托的艺术史哲学问题,以及卡罗尔的立场,即与丹托不同,我们应该把丹托的 "艺术(历史)的终结 "论断理解为一种方向性叙事(即一种具有认知购买力的实用工具性叙事),而不是一种历史科学叙事。在提出这一论点的过程中,我说明了卡罗尔的论证是如何证明丹托的 "艺术(历史)终结 "论与丹托的历史哲学存在矛盾的。此外,我还参与并回应了卡罗尔在文中提出的最具实质性的批评意见,尤其是涉及丹托的艺术史哲学以及丹托(艺术)从历史角度寻求艺术定义的相关问题。在特别关注一件物品被赋予艺术地位的社会历史背景条件(即 "艺术世界 "条件)的同时,我还展示了卡罗尔的精辟解读是如何对罗伯特-B-皮平(Robert B. Pippin)和伊万-加斯凯尔(Ivan Gaskell)等近期批评家提出的主张进行批判性反驳的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
History and Theory
History and Theory Multiple-
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
9.10%
发文量
36
期刊介绍: History and Theory leads the way in exploring the nature of history. Prominent international thinkers contribute their reflections in the following areas: critical philosophy of history, speculative philosophy of history, historiography, history of historiography, historical methodology, critical theory, and time and culture. Related disciplines are also covered within the journal, including interactions between history and the natural and social sciences, the humanities, and psychology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信