"...This led Mr. Danto to propose a new way of defining art. The term would be bestowed not according to any putatively intrinsic, aesthetic qualities shared by all artworks but by general agreement in the “artworld,” a community that included artists, art historians, critics, curators, dealers and collectors who shared an understanding about the history and theory of modern art."
[my underlining]
I'm not so sure of the utility of this defining art, as it could lead to not chaos but some self-evidently untenable propositions and positions, especially as in our time, political pressures--whether from the right or left--have entered into the equation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/28/arts/design/arthur-c-danto-a-philosopher-of-art-is-dead-at-89.html?_r=0
“To see something as art requires something the eye cannot descry — an atmosphere of artistic theory, a knowledge of the history of art: an artworld.” -Arthur Danto, The Artworld, essay (1964)
I thought "the idea" was to return to populism and anyway from elitism. Or is the contention that once the general public has a basic understanding of art history, it too will join the ranks of those who can say what is and what isn't art?
