Abstract: Chapter 19 Criticism and the Pale of History Gregg M. Horowitz, Gregg M. HorowitzSearch for more papers by this author Gregg M. Horowitz, Gregg M. HorowitzSearch for more papers by this author Book Editor(s):Jonathan Gilmore, Jonathan GilmoreSearch for more papers by this authorLydia Goehr, Lydia GoehrSearch for more papers by this author First published: 18 April 2022 https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119154242.ch19 AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Abstract Having accepted the invitation to write a regular column about art from Elizabeth Pochoda, then the literary editor of The Nation magazine, Arthur Danto wrote a lot of criticism. Danto wrests himself free of the history of art criticism when, in writing about recent predecessors, he claims that their critical approaches must be understood as artifacts of their historical time. The lack of an autonomous history of art criticism, one that would make current practice intelligible in terms of its own history, should puzzle us. Many other genres of criticism plainly have histories that shape their current practice in terms both of subject and method. The value of Danto's essay as criticism is exhausted in its relation to the moment of the art world in which it participated. A Companion to Arthur C. Danto RelatedInformation
Publication Year: 2022
Publication Date: 2022-04-18
Language: en
Type: other
Indexed In: ['crossref']
Access and Citation
Cited By Count: 1
AI Researcher Chatbot
Get quick answers to your questions about the article from our AI researcher chatbot