In Jonathan Gilmore & Lydia Goehr (eds.), Blackwell Companion to Arthur Danto. Oxford: Blackwell (forthcoming)

Authors
Sam Rose
University of St. Andrews
Bence Nanay
University of Antwerp
Abstract
Jerry Fodor wrote the following assessment of Danto’s importance in 1993: “Danto has done something I’ve been very much wanting to do: namely, reconsider some hard problems in aesthetics in the light of the past 20 years or so of philosophical work on intentionality and representation” (Fodor 1993, p. 41). Fodor is absolutely right: some of Danto’s work could be thought of as the application of some influential ideas about perception that Fodor also shared. The problem is that these ideas have turned out to be false. Both Danto and Fodor are modularist: they both think that perception is an encapsulated process that is in no way influenced by any kind of non-perceptual processing (see, e.g., Fodor 1983, Pylyshyn 1984). Many of Danto’s famous and influential arguments rely very directly on this modularist assumption. There is now, however, a wealth of evidence against modularism of the strong kind held to by Danto and Fodor. We now know that perceptual experience is not determined entirely by the retinal input: our visual processing is influenced at various point in a top-down manner. What we know and what kinds of visual stimuli we have encountered previously deeply influence how the retinal input is processed. The empirical literature on this is vast and conclusive (for an overview, see Teufel and Nanay 2017 but see also the references in the last section of this paper). What does this mean for Danto’s views on art and perception? While one of Danto’s premises may turn out to be false, the history and examples he gave are valuable and bear repeating. Even more importantly, Danto’s aesthetics can in part be separated out from his modularism, leading us to draw slightly different but arguably even more interesting conclusions from famous thought experiments such as the Gallery of Indiscernibles.
Keywords Danto  Perception  Modularism
Categories (categorize this paper)
Buy the book Find it on Amazon.com
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Danto and His Critics.Mark Rollins (ed.) - 1993 - Wiley-Blackwell.
Apposite Bodies: Dancing with Danto.Joshua M. Hall - 2015 - Philosophy in the Contemporary World 22 (1):19-36.
The End of Art?Noel Carroll - 1998 - History and Theory 37 (4):17–29.
Back in Style: A New Interpretation of Danto's Style Matrix.Frank Boardman - 2015 - Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 73 (4):441-448.
The End of Art? (Philosophy of Art History).Noel Carroll - 1998 - History and Theory 37 (4):17-29.
Danto's Comic Vision: Philosophical Method and Literary Style.Noel Carroll - 2015 - Philosophy and Literature 39 (2):554-563.
Surface Interpretation: Reply to Leddy.Peg Zeglin Brand & Myles Brand - 1999 - Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 57 (4):463-465.
Danto's Narrative Philosophy of History and the End of Art.Stephen Snyder - 2015 - Philosophy in the Contemporary World 22 (1):50-66.
On Late Style: Arthur Danto’s the Abuse of Beauty.Diarmuid Costello - 2004 - British Journal of Aesthetics 44 (4):424-439.
Danto, Derrida and the Artworld Frame.Denise Thwaites - 2017 - Derrida Today 10 (1):67-88.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2020-01-21

Total views
90 ( #119,307 of 2,448,408 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
17 ( #40,008 of 2,448,408 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes