Friday, October 19, 2007

It's a game

"You see, all art has now become completely a game by which man distracts himself; and you may say it has always been like that, but now it's entirely a game. And... what is fascinating now is that it's goin to become much more difficult for the artist, because he really must deepen the game to be any good at all."
— Francis Bacon

1 comment:

choonsmith said...

In his essay, 'The Artistic Enfranchisement of Real Objects: the Artworld'(1964),Arthur Danto, acknowledges that the works of Marcel Duchamp and various Pop Art artists have made it impossible to separate art from non-art on the basis of formal qualities. Danto asks what will ultimately determine the difference between a Brillo box and a work of art consisting of a Brillo box? Danto's question amounts to the following: when one of two identical objects is considered art while the other is not, a certain context is assumed within which these two formally indistinguishable objects still enjoy their respective status. Danto calls this context the artworld: 'To see something as art requires something the eye cannot decry - an atmosphere of artistic theory, a knowledge of the history of art: an artworld' (Danto in Dickie & Sclafani, p.29). In 1974, George Dickie adds a sociological and pragmatic definition of a work of art to this notion of artworld: a work of art is a series of aspects (not every aspect of a work of art makes it a work of art) to which one or more individuals who act on behalf of the social institution 'artworld' (e.g., the artist himself, presidents of art institutions, critics, aestheticians, etc.) grant the status of 'art' (cf. Dickie, p.35). Objects become works of art because (influential) people in the artworld have declared them to be works of art.
Its the 'ardest game of all mate!