Danto begins “The Artworld” by going after Socrates’ and Plato’s view of art as imitation or a mirror. He calls this the “Imitation Theory” or “IT”. If this were accurate then any image reflected in a mirror would also be considered an artwork. Although, many artists during Socrates’ and Plato’s time and later tried to imitate nature into their art. The advancements of photography ultimately ended this as an artform and proved the Imitation Theory to be false. Since imitation was not their goal, modern art, mainly post-impressionist works challenged the Imitation Theory.
Therefore, there had to be a new theory created to show why these works were actually art. The “Reality Theory,” or RT, didn’t even attempt to show artworks were imitations as they did not appear realistic in any way. For example, Roy Lichtenstein’s huge paintings of comic-book panels “are not imitations but new entities, as giant whelks would be” (p. 205). A same example can be made for Robert Rauschenberg’s bed that he hung on his wall and covered with paint. Someone like Testadura probably won’t even realize this is actually art and will most likely think it’s just a disaster of a bed.
Testadura’s errors are philosophical ones. When looking upon Rauschenberg’s bed he assumes the paint streaks are from the carelessness of the owner. Testadura wrongly took art for reality. Just as Testadura took Oldenburg’s bed to just be a normal bed created by an unskilled builder. However, Testadura is also right when he claims that “all he sees is paint” (p. 208). Danto goes on to say how if asked to prove the piece is art, it cannot be done; and that one can’t simply point out some tiny detail to prove it is art.
Danto states that Testadura can’t be helped until he masters the “is of artistic identification” (p. 208). If Testadura grasps this concept he will be able to look upon art. If not, then he will simply be, how Danto puts it, “a child who sees sticks as sticks” (p. 208). Testadura represents the the imitation theory as he cannot distinguish between art portraying a real object and the actual real object. Testadura doesn’t the black and white painting as such but he sees as just white and black paint. The same goes for the 10th street abstractionist views that are very similar to Testadura’s.
Although, the 10th street abstractionist is held to a higher standard because of his higher level of knowledge on art than Testadura. Testadura and the 10th street abstractionist can have the same opinion but with different reaction/context. This goes back to the differentiation of the imitation theory. To see the different caliber of identical opinions. Danto goes on to argue through the Reality theory how Testadura is wrong for just identifying the paint and not the art. Danto’s own account in this case comes from the Newton’s 1st and 3rd law paintings.
Danto uses these paintings as an example to differentiate two identical objects based on the knowledge that they are theoretically two different things. In one of the paintings, the line in the middle “is” the path of a particle. In the other painting, the two squares “are” forces pressing against one another. Danto refers to the “is” in these examples as “the ‘is’ of artistic identification”. Testadura must understand the “is” here in order to fully understand art. Danto’s comes up with his own theory which is somewhat ambiguous but involves the “is” of artistic identification.
This theory of art also involves art historical knowledge and being able to see something as art. As I have suggested, it is not clearly stated, but seems to be of the following: something is art if it can be perceived as art by way of the art appreciators knowledge of the history of art so that history leads up to this work and so the appreciator can see it according to the “is” of artistic identification. The “is” of artistic identification is actually imaginative as it includes make believe situations and not only works of art.
Danto states how Testadura is not yet to the stage f truly understanding something for more than just what it appears and claims how, “to see something as art requires something the eye cannot decry–an atmosphere of artistic theory, a knowledge of the history of an art: an artworld” (p. 209). I would agree with Danto’s theory for the following reasons. Danto’s theory gives a better understanding for the reasoning behind differentiating, for example, a bed, and a piece of art. Another reason why I agree with Danto’s theory is for the explanation of the “is” of artistic identification.
In order to fully understand art one must master the “is” of artistic identification, and Danto’s theory supports that the most. An argument against Danto’s theory could be the support for the “Imitation Theory”. Although, if this were accurate then any image reflected in a mirror would also be considered an artwork. Another argument that could be presented against Danto’s theory is to say there is no need for “is” of artistic identification. I would disagree on the grounds that understanding the “is” of artistic identification is 100% in order to fully art for what it is.
