I
Artist: What can you tell me about Arthur Danto’s thought experiment involving nine identical red monochrome panels?
Philosopher: Arthur Danto’s thought experiment involving nine identical red monochrome panels is known as the “Red Square” experiment. In this experiment, Danto presents a scenario where there are nine identical red monochrome panels displayed in an art gallery. Each panel is exactly the same shade of red and has the same dimensions.
The purpose of this experiment is to explore the concept of artistic meaning and the role of context in determining what is considered art. Danto argues that the panels cannot be considered art solely based on their physical appearance or aesthetic qualities because they are indistinguishable from one another.
Instead, Danto suggests that the meaning and status of the panels as art depend on the context in which they are presented. For example, if the panels are displayed in an art gallery, they are likely to be interpreted as artworks because the gallery setting implies that they are intended to be seen as art. On the other hand, if the panels are found in a hardware store or a paint shop, they would be seen as mere objects or materials rather than art.
Danto’s thought experiment challenges the traditional notion that art is solely defined by its visual characteristics. It highlights the importance of the artworld, the context in which art is presented, and the role of interpretation in determining what is considered art. The experiment raises questions about the nature of art and the criteria used to define it, encouraging a deeper exploration of the philosophical aspects of art.
II
Artist: Were the following titles ever used by Danto: “a flag for a parade of a socialist labor party”; “a piece of fabric used to mend a whole in a larger piece of fabric”; “an early work by Olivier Mosset”; or “a “Secret Painting” by Mel Ramsden gone horribly wrong”?
Philosopher: No.
III
Artist: But what about these titles? I feel some of these must be correct:
“A philosophical meditation on the nature of art”
“A cheap poster”
“A piece of fabric intended to cover a hole in a larger piece of fabric”
“A panel in a red room of a temple devoted to the worship of the sun”
“A flag for a parade of communist labor parties”
“A study for a painting by a great artist”
“A poetic masterpiece”
“A small work in a large series of monochromes painted by a madman”
“An early work of a famous painter”
As you can see, each title suggests a different context and interpretation for the red monochrome, highlighting how the meaning of an artwork is not fixed but rather is constructed through cultural and social practices.
Philosopher: These aren’t the titles that I recall from Danto’s text. But let’s say they are and explore the work that they might do to advance Danto’s argument. His purpose was to demonstrate the concept of “aboutness” in art — how the context and framing of an artwork profoundly influence its interpretation and perceived value. Each title he gave to the nine identical red monochromes suggests a different narrative or context in which the artwork could be understood:
“A philosophical meditation on the nature of art” positions the artwork as a deep reflection on the essence of art itself, suggesting intellectual contemplation.
“A cheap poster” reduces the artwork to a mundane, mass-produced item, emphasizing its everyday, disposable quality.
“A piece of fabric intended to cover a hole in a larger piece of fabric” gives a utilitarian purpose to the artwork, stripping away any artistic intention and reducing it to mere functionality.
“A panel in a red room of a temple devoted to the worship of the sun” imbues the artwork with spiritual or ritualistic significance, suggesting it as part of a sacred context.
“A flag for a parade of communist labor parties” associates the artwork with political symbolism, particularly with leftist ideologies and collective movements.
“A study for a painting by a great artist” positions the artwork as a preparatory sketch or study for a potentially significant future artwork by a renowned artist.
“A poetic masterpiece” elevates the artwork to the status of a profound and inspiring poetic creation, focusing on its aesthetic and emotional impact.
“A small work in a large series of monochromes painted by a madman” frames the artwork as part of a larger body of work by an outsider or eccentric artist, invoking questions about artistic sanity and unconventional creativity.
“An early work of a famous painter” suggests the artwork as an early piece by a well-known artist, inviting comparisons with their later, more recognized works and exploring themes of artistic development.
Each title suggests a different way to interpret the same physical object. The thought experiment is a vivid way for Danto to demonstrate that the meaning of art is deeply intertwined with cultural, historical, and contextual factors.
Artist: But don’t philosophers say that anything can be shown to be connected to anything else? It all depends on what features are picked out for description.
IV
Philosopher: As an artist, do you feel that the meaning of your work depends on a proper understanding of cultural, historical, and contextual factors?
Artist: That is glaringly obvious! The meaning of any subject in art is profoundly influenced by cultural, historical, and contextual factors.
Philosopher: Can you say more? It sounds like you’ve been watching too many episodes of Simon Schama’s Power of Art.
Artist: I’m digging deeper!
Philosopher: Have you been doing your homework?
Artist: Listen, do you have a problem with artists who philosophize about art? Are you the kind of philosopher who makes a distinction between professional philosophy and the content of the informal philosophizing that artists do all the time?
V
Philosopher: Shall we define philosophy now? Defining philosophy is itself a philosophical endeavor, and there are many perspectives on what philosophy is and what it encompasses. Some will point to “fundamental questions”, of existence, knowledge, values, and reasoning. We should also consider the methods characteristic of philosophy. For example, philosophy involves rigorous examination and critique of concepts, arguments, and beliefs. Philosophers seek to clarify and define key concepts and ideas. Constructing and evaluating arguments is central to philosophical practice. And philosophers are endlessly engaging in dialogue and debate to explore and resolve philosophical issues.
Artist: “Shall we define philosophy now?” You haven’t yet, so how about it!
Philosopher: Given the diversity and breadth of philosophy, a precise definition is challenging. However, a working definition might be: “Philosophy is the systematic and critical examination of fundamental questions concerning existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. It employs rigorous methodologies, including analysis, argumentation, and dialogue, to explore and clarify these questions.”
Artist: What a snob you are! Let’s talking about informal philosophizing.
Philosopher: Philosophy is not only an academic discipline but also something that we do in everyday life. People engage in philosophical thinking when they reflect on their beliefs, question their assumptions, and seek to understand the world around them. This informal philosophizing can be just as valuable and insightful as formal academic philosophy, providing diverse perspectives and grounding philosophical inquiry in lived experience.
VI
Artist: May I remind you of Arthur Danto’s position on the philosophical project of defining art? In “The Artworld” (1964), he deals with this question, “what is art?” It’s a problem, Danto says, that is raised by artists themselves, when they make works that are indiscernible from ordinary objects or choreograph performances that are indistinguishable from everyday actions and behavior. The paradigm case for Danto is Andy Warhol’s “Brillo Box”. By now, sixty years later, we can point to dozens more works of art and performance that are indiscernible from things and actions in everyday life. Because these works of art exist, Danto argues that the traditional approach of defining art based on aesthetic properties or formal qualities is no longer sufficient. He introduces the concept of the artworld, which refers to the cultural and institutional framework within which artworks are created, interpreted, and evaluated.
It is this construct—the artworld—that plays a crucial role in determining what can be considered art. He suggests that there is no essential or intrinsic property that an artwork embodies. Rather, the meaning and significance of an artwork is shaped by the artworld’s conventions, theories, and practices. The artworld provides a framework for interpreting and understanding artworks. All the writing about art, all the galleries and museums exhibiting art, all the stories that surround art . . . these are the basis for identifying and classifying things and actions as art.
What do other philosophers think about the project of defining art? Do their opinions have any relationship to how artists view this issue? Is it even a problem for artists to “define” what they do as art?
Philosopher: Your summary of Danto sounds like we should all accept the authority of the artworld on the strength of his argument. How authoritative is it? If the job of the artworld is to make meaning, what does that imply for all of us who are not part of the artworld? Who are just on the outside looking in? The average person may exclaim, “It’s art if I like what it is.” Philosophers may feel that it’s their job to know when something is or is not art. Even artists have had to pushback against the power of the artworld: art critics, curators, auction houses. I seem to recall a Conceptual artist saying, “artists make meaning”, and a painter saying, “It’s art if I say it is.” The average person may exclaim, “It’s art if I like what it is.” Philosophers may feel that it’s their job to know when something is or is not art.
VII
Artist: Does this mean that you professional philosophers are going to admit to the informal philosophizing that artists do all the time?
Philosopher: The relationship between professional philosophers and the informal philosophizing done by artists can be complex. Professional philosophers are often trained in a specific academic discipline that emphasizes rigorous argumentation, formal logic, and theoretical analysis. Informal philosophizing by artists may not adhere to these strict methodologies, making it less recognizable as “philosophy” in the academic sense. Philosophy, like many academic fields, has become highly specialized. Philosophers may focus on narrow areas of expertise, making them less likely to engage with broader, more informal reflections on art. Philosophical writing tends to use specialized language and terminology that can be inaccessible or seem overly complex to those outside the field. Artists, conversely, may use more intuitive, metaphorical, or experiential language that doesn’t align with academic norms. Philosophers typically communicate through academic journals, books, and conferences, whereas artists might express their ideas through interviews, artist statements, and the artwork itself. These different formats can create a communication gap. The academic world often draws boundaries around what is considered legitimate scholarship. Informal philosophizing might be seen as less rigorous or authoritative. There can be a perception that professional philosophers, due to their training and expertise, are more qualified to engage in philosophical discourse than artists, whose primary expertise lies in creative practice.
VIII
Artist: I’ve tried to bridge the gap, believe me. I’ve collaborated with philosophers. Lots of good conversations with Philippe Chuard, Alfred Nordmann, and Catherine Elgin. Maybe academic programs that combine philosophy and art can cultivate a new generation of scholars and artists who are fluent in both disciplines. Sometimes artists bring unique insights and perspectives that can enrich philosophical discourse, but the question is, “Who is listening?” And if philosophers are taking notice of this—the informal philosophizing of artists most likely results in works of art—they need to be less defensive.
Philosopher: Some artists, such as Adrian Piper and Mel Bochner have also studied philosophy formally. I’d also include the auto-didacts like Art & Language, Maureen Connor, or Hester Reeve . . . I could name more. The work of all these artists illustrates philosophy in various ways. Let’s be honest, though; being self-taught, these artists will likely face some of the biases you’ve already mentioned. Philosophy is a genuinely conservative discipline that looks after its own and the hell with anyone else.
IX
Artist: Some philosophers are quite tolerable, as human beings. The performance artist Hester Reeve talks a lot with philosopher Sacha Golub. Speaking of artists and philosophers, Thomas Hirschhorn tells us we should love philosophy, and he’s very attached to the philosopher Marcus Steinweg. And then there is Adrian Piper, an artist and a philosopher, sometimes both at the same time.
Philosopher: Piper poses a really important philosophical question to art. She asks, what kind of unmediated access do artists have to the material objects they create? What is the nature of the intuitive knowledge artists have that allows them to conjure spatiotemporally discrete objects in advance of any conceptual identification or interpretation of the object that might be invoked to explain, either to themselves or others, the significance of doing so? Piper contends that both questions have the same answer. It’s a long response but try to keep up: “For reasons depending on idiosyncrasies of personal development or social and historical circumstance, artists are deficient in socialization in at least one creatively useful way: they are able to see through the contingent empirical concepts by which we are taught to make sense of our social environment, and they choose to specialize in and develop this capacity. These contingent empirical concepts are the ones that are instilled in most of us so deeply that, other things equal, we lose the capacity to recognize the potential of objects, materials and states of affairs to transcend them. Socialization this deeply rooted leads us to assume unquestioningly that the rules, roles, relationships and functions of objects we learn in the process of acculturation are necessary ones: that a urinal can have only one function; that a target has only one role; that a skin color can have only one signification. The contingent empirical concepts in accordance with which we assign these unidimensional properties to objects of our experience mediate them not merely by interposing a conceptual scrim between us and them. They also constrain our thinking, about every aspect of our surroundings, to the familiar, mundane and conventional.”
Artist: Danto was on to something when he introduced the concept of the “artworld”. The bubble that is the artworld, as liberating as it may be for some, is a highly managed bureaucracy churning out works that are self-certifying, comfortable, and conventional. What we need is more nuance, less dogma.
Michael Corris 