‘In our narrative, at first, only mimesis [imitation] was art, then several things were art but each tried to extinguish its competitors, and then, finally, it became apparent that there were no stylistic or philosophical constraints. There is no special way works of art have to be. And that is the present and, I should say, the final moment in the master narrative. It is the end of the story.’ (Danto 1998: 47)
It is important to take into account Warhol’s exposition of ‘Brillo Boxes’ since it is meant to show that the developmental history of art has ended with this event (Carrier 1998: 7). According to Danto, in the 20th century, the goal of art has changed due to Andy Warhol’s ‘Brillo Boxes’ (Carroll 1998: 19-20). So that Warhol contributed to developing a second narrative in which the goal of art is to define itself and reflect on the theory of art – the theory an artwork represents. Thus, artists can be both artists and philosophers at the same time: making artworks and raising philosophical questions about them or art-theories in general. One can simply raise theoretical questions through his artwork. This is what Warhol pointed out with his ‘Brillo Boxes’.
The graffiti works of Banksy are more than what it seems at the first sight. Banksy’s graffiti is more than a simple mechanism of representation; it has both context and strong political content. Let us make an analogy to human beings. As Danto puts it (Danto 1964: 576), a person is more than a body, it has its own consciousness and thoughts, following that when one sees a close friend, one does not only relate to the physical appearance but also to reconciliations and by this, a non-physical image, such as the character, is constructed. In the same way, Warhol’s ‘Brillo Boxes’ are more than boxes. They should be seen as a complex
object and not as mere boxes, so that one takes more than the physical appearance into account and seeks to find the reason behind them and why there were exposed to the public. This exercise is made by appealing to the artwork’s context and its relation to art history.
‘If one may make the facsimile of a human being out of bronze and it is agreed that it is art, then why not the facsimile of a Brillo carton out of plywood can be art as well?’ (Danto 1964: 580).
In 1912 Pablo Picasso pasted the sticker of a bottle of Suze onto his drawing (‘Glass and Bottle of Suze’) and it is acknowledged as a piece of art. In contrast, with extreme care and much attention to detail, after 52 years Warhol tries to reproduce a machine-made object, a common Brillo box. No doubt that the statue of David by Michelangelo is considered a piece of art but then, Warhol may ask, what if someone reproduces an ordinary object and not a human and he does it in the same way and following the same process a sculptor follows? According to Danto’s ‘Artworld’, it is art because it can be traced to a certain art theory (Danto 1964: 581) and, more specifically, it meets the two principles of his theory (Danto 1964: 580): 1) it has an atmosphere of artistic theory; 2) it has knowledge of art history. Regarding the first principle, it is a bit unclear since Danto does not explain what he means by ‘an atmosphere of artistic theory’. In my opinion, he may refer to the awareness and understanding of artistic theory. So that when a curator is staring at ‘Brillo Boxes’ he must see some elements in that work which draws him to the conclusion that Warhol is educated and has knowledge of art theories, so that he has an artistic sense distinct from what was expressed before him. An atmosphere of artistic theory can also mean being aesthetically pleasing and revealing creative skill and original elements. It seems quite clear to me that Warhol raises a question on the imitation theory of art and asks people to re-evaluate art and its definitions. But the act of finding elements in order to categorize a work as art may be deceitful. Let us take the following example. Imagine that Warhol, in fact, has never been studying art theory. He knows nothing about it but he likes art and he desperately wants to be an artist. Critics look at his works and they all agree that he must know some art theory when in fact he does not. But one may reply here that what Danto meant by the first principle only relates to the work itself and not to the artist in question. So that even if the artist does not know anything about art theory but critics and curators find that his work expresses an atmosphere of artistic theory, it still meets Danto’s first standard. In regards to the second principle which is about art history and not artistic theory, the same critique can be applied. As a result, if people find connections to art history in a questioned work, i.e. previous art movements and artworks, then the work in question is art. But then, there are new questions for Danto.
Who is entitled to speak about different works and define them as artworks? If only some people, like art critics and curators, have that right, then on what basis are those people entitled to define whether something is art or not? What are the criteria to select the artists?