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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Danto's argument from 'indiscernibles' demonstrates that no purely experiential account can differentiate art from non-art without invoking institutional or historical context.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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