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.