Embodiment and Wakeful Dreams - Danto's Revisited Definition of Art in the Light of Costello's Criticism
Abstract
One of the topics to which philosopher Arthur C. Danto paid a systematic attention is the one of definition of art.
His contribution to the discussion developed mainly in his book The Transfiguration of the Commonplace works on the principle of indiscernibles aims to distinguish an artwork from mere real things but without forming the real definition. Later on Danto isolated two of necessary conditions and characterized art as "embodied meaning." However, this was not his last say on this topic.
In 2013, Danto published his last book What Art Is and added the third necessary condition of "wakeful dreams". In my proposal, I aim to consider this Danto's step with regard to Diarmuid Costello's criticism of Danto's cognitivism as presented in the article "Whatever happened to "embodiment"? The eclipse of materiality in Danto's ontology of art." I shall seek to answer a question whether Danto's revision of the definition is able to resist Costello's arguments.
In the first part of my proposal, I shall focus on Danto's characterization of art as embodied meaning, and on the role of interpretation which Danto considered to be an adequate means to grasp the meaning of an artwork. In order to understand Costello's criticism, I shall briefly summarize Danto's view on aesthetics.
Danto expresses his negative attitude towards aesthetics and aesthetic attitude in several texts and his book The Abuse of Beauty is possible to understand as a certain kind of exception because here Danto relates his objections exclusively with beauty and not with other aesthetic categories. Although Danto's attitude towards aesthetics is a complex one, I will limit myself to the claim that Danto systematically denies aesthetic considerations as a part of definition of art.
The reason for this step rests on his principle of indiscernibles: if there are two perceptually indiscernible objects one of which is a work of art and the second one is a mere real thing, their perceptual qualities are from the point of view of definition irrelevant. And if perpetual qualities are irrelevant, aesthetic qualities are irrelevant as well and therefore so-called aesthetic definitions or theories of art are not plausible conceptions.
This Danto's understanding of aesthetics illuminates reasons why he privileges interpretation as a correlate of meaning. In his writings, interpretation has a transformative function, i.e. it is able to uplift artworks from the sphere of mere real things.
Moreover, it is constitutive in a sense that it is the interpretation which makes the identity of the work of art in question. But this does not mean that Danto accepts relativism.
According to his theory, interpretation consists in a sequence of artistic identifications which determine which of qualities of the thing belongs to the artwork and the adequate interpretation is very close to the one of an artist. With regard to this, interpretation is a correlate of the meaning of the work of art.
After that, I shall consider Costello's criticism. Costello focuses mainly on two interrelated aspects of Danto's ontology, i.e. on Danto's emphasis of meaning of an artwork and its interpretation.
He compares Danto's contribution with aesthetic theories which are based on the idea of existence of a specific (aesthetic) response to works of art. Contrary to this kind of response, Danto propose a cognitive response based on art historical knowledge which precedes interpretation.
Costello challenges Danto's principle of indiscernibles and claims that Danto infers conclusions which do not follow from the character of the principle. According to Costello, perceptual qualities are not sufficient for art definition but this does not mean that these qualities are not necessary.
In other words, perceptual qualities should be part of the definition of art and Danto'smistake in inference, i.e. his assumption that these qualities are not necessary, is according to Costello responsible for his emphasis of the meaning and neglecting of the embodiment. This criticism goes hand in hand with Costello's opinion on the role of cognitive response (interpretation), which is not sufficient for treating an artifact as a work of art.
Danto's belief that it is considers as a consequence of overlooking the importance of the interaction of the meaning of the artwork and its material basis. According to Costello, it is important to think about the way the basis of the work in question is made in order to express the meaning.
The meaning is at least partially expressed through the process of creation and the process goes beyond mere cognition. Costello argues further that the material basis of an artwork provokes emotions and therefore it is responsible for affective dimension of art.
The material basis influences the response of the audience and in order to explain how, Costello introduces a notion of "opacity". The basis of the artworks is opaque in a sense that it makes interpretation of the work in question more complicated and therefore it intensifies the interest of the viewer.
However, this process exceeds interpretation. With respect to this, Costello claims that the interpretation is not a sufficient means for dealing with art and in consequence that Danto's conception is not an adequate theory of art.
In the third part of my presentation, I shall focus on the additionally formulated condition of "wakeful dreams" in the book What Art Is. This book was published couple years after Costello's criticism but I believe that it is possible to scrutinize this new condition from the point of view of Costello's criticism.
Danto's characteristic of wakeful dreams is tied to a certain skill of an artist and it is responsible for the emotional and cognitive response of the audience. Danto seek to explain the nature of wakeful dreams by means of the example of a ballet performance of Michail Baryshnikov who imitated a movement of a football player: his ability to imitate provokes certain emotions on the part of the audience and these emotions are according to Danto shared, i.e. the movement provokes a certain range of feelings.
However, Danto quite surprisingly pays more attention to the role of understanding or to a certain kind of vocabulary which enables people in the audience to interpret the movement correctly, i.e. as football, than to the role of emotions in the interpretation of the performance. However, it seems that this condition address the target of Costello's criticism.
Nevertheless, as I shall show even in more detail, Danto does not reflect on material embodiment of art but only on a specific skill or ability of an artist. In my opinion, this skill is realized through the medium of artwork in question and therefore it is necessary to pay more attention to the embodiment.
Given this, I shall argue that the new condition of wakeful dreams makes Costello's arguments even more urgent. If art has to provoke emotions necessarily, it is necessary to specify how.