Does Danto's 'The Disenfranchisement of Art' (1984) imply that if anything can be an art then nothing is?

Question

An ex friend claimed that if anything can be an art then nothing is, and cited the following passage as a proof:> When art internalizes its own history, when it becomes self-conscious> of its history as it has come to be in our time, so that its> consciousness of its history forms part of its nature, it is perhaps> unavoidable that it should turn into philosophy at last. And when it> does so, well, in an important sense, art comes to an end.'The Disenfranchisement of Art' (1984) Does that follow, because to me it looks a little like a confusion of modality?

Answer 1

I would say your friend jumped to the wrong conclusion there. In that passage, Danto is saying that eventually art will become philosophy. That is not to say that "nothing will be art", in fact, quite the opposite. Art will be elevated to the level of Philosophy. That doesn't mean art is "over" altogether, that means it will be changed to a point that our current definition of art will also have to change. So, in a sense, our current definition of "art" will become irrelevant, thus our current understandings of what "art" is will be "over". Your friend's claim that "Anything can be art" still implies that it has to be proven in some way. Just because anything can be considered art doesn't mean that everything automatically is. Let's break down my counter-argument to your friend's first argument more plainly.

1. anything can be art
2. anything is not everything
3. therefore, art is some things
4. some things are not "nothing"

conclusion: art is not "nothing"

The conflation here between "Anything" and "Everything" is what's problematic here. "Anything" has limits, definitions, and parameters. "Nothing" is not the antonym of "Anything"; "Everything" is the opposite of "Nothing". "Anything" means some things, whose opposite is less clear. This is an example of a "false dichotomy", which is a term for a type of bad argument that sets up two fake opposites to support a false conclusion.

I would say in that passage, Danto is arguing that since anything can be considered art, our current conception of art will have to change to include this in its definition.

Hope that helps clear things up!

-Elk