Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Danto's argument from 'indiscernibles' demonstrates that ... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Defining art solely in terms of aesthetic experience is problematic.

    Danto's argument from 'indiscernibles' demonstrates that no purely experiential account can differentiate art from non-art without invoking institutional or historical context.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Identical objects (Brillo boxes vs. Warhol) are perceptually indistinguishable, yet only one is art, proving experience alone cannot determine arthood.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Pure aestheticism fails to explain why readymades or conceptual art count as art despite lacking traditional sensory properties valued in experience.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Institutional context (museums, galleries, art discourse) causally determines whether objects are treated and valued as art, not just perceived aesthetically.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Experiential accounts need not claim perceptual identity suffices; they can hold that experience plus knowledge of creation history constitutes the relevant experience.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Institutional context itself depends on prior aesthetic or conceptual judgments; institutions don't create arthood ex nihilo but recognize it through contextual understanding.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The indiscernibles argument conflates the epistemological problem of identifying art with the metaphysical question of what constitutes arthood—they may require different answers.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Connections

    1 topic

    Aesthetics1 linked

    Related

    Defining art solely in terms of aesthetic experience is problematic.Experiential accounts need not claim perceptual identity suffices; they can hold...Identical objects (Brillo boxes vs. Warhol) are perceptually indistinguishable, ...Institutional context (museums, galleries, art discourse) causally determines wh...
    +3 moreShow less
    Institutional context itself depends on prior aesthetic or conceptual judgments;...Pure aestheticism fails to explain why readymades or conceptual art count as art...The indiscernibles argument conflates the epistemological problem of identifying...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit