Umjetnost kao samorefleksija. Od Hegelova kraja povijesti do Dantoova kraja umjetnosti
Art as Self-reflection. From Hegel’s End of History to Danto’s End of Art

Summary/Abstract: The development of artistic practices and the creation of a new category of artistic artefacts have led, as was expected, to the problem of the intuitive and theoretical definition of the said artefacts and practices as (non)artistic. The introduction of the so far non-artistic or utilitarian objects of everyday life into the world of art has caused a rift in the definition of the predicate as a work of art. The ensuing response and theoretical challenge was evident in the often disputed need and the sheer possibility to define art in the first place. It would seem that, in the context of the said issue, the need is beyond debate, but the possibility of definition has been firmly determined methodologically speaking – the desired definition must not crumble under the new development of artistic practices, especially given the fact that it is derived from art as a completed system. Furthermore, despite its state of completeness, it has to be able to encompass new artistic objects and thus retain its democratic quality, innovativeness and imagination as characteristics that traditionally constitute the field of the artistic. Such a challenging task, which without a more in-depth theoretical analysis seems almost contradictory, is feasible if we were to combine Danto’s and Hegel’s theories. We should attempt to define art on the basis of itself, its historical development, while at the same time justly abandoning aesthetics as a philosophical discipline proving insufficient in the task of self-problematizing art as the philosophy of art. Thus art becomes the object of its own scrutiny and its own philosophy, which enables the desired duplicity of defining it.

• Details
• Contents