Eye-Opener: Memo

What is Art?

"If Art is everything then Art is nothing..."

From the perspective of Arthur Danto:

Longinus, how could you say that a box, such as the one I told you about could not be considered an artwork in the first place? I did not expect you of all people, the forefather of “Sublimity” to be so narrow-minded?
Whatever happened to going beyond the ‘boundary of the corporeality’? In order for one ‘to see something as art, one requires something the eyes cannot scrutinize’. What if there was a world specifically for Art: an Artworld? This world is not as far away as one might think. Rather, this world is in the same planet and universe as ours. One could say that this world is almost a subset of one’s world, but it exists solely on its own with its set of standards. It is possible after all; you personally witnessed me materialized in thin air right before your own eyes.
You must be careful not to mistaken the “daily world” per se from the Artworld. One most likely will mistaken the daily world for the Artworld, thus one renders each inseparable from the other. As a result, one assumes that everything in the daily world is also in the Artworld. This clearly contradicts the whole point of the Artworld. A fellow contemporary of mine, Mr. Monroe Beardsley, has debated the quagmire we are in. He often emphasized that if Art meant everything then it was nothing. Thus the Artworld is different from the daily world.
The Artworld has an individualistic sense of artistry in theory, identity and history. Two of the main theories that are important to consider in the Artworld’s individualistic sense are the Imitation Theory and the Reality Theory. If one were to say that Art is nothing but a mirror image of nature, then one would deprive Art of its very existence. Therefore, one would be asserting that Art is incapable of standing on its own; it is thus cheapened into an empty illusion. If this were so, would you consider a reflection of an image from a mirror, Art? First of all, a new entity is not created, and secondly, this reflection deceives us. It would not uplift us into the Sublime.
These answers from the previous inquiry lead me to the second theory, the Reality Theory. According to this theory, Art is not supposed to deceive people; it is not an imitation. It may have similarities to the object of its origin/inspiration, but it is still not an illusion. It may not be a real copy; nonetheless it is still a new entity in itself.
I remember you once wrote that Art was often reduced into technicalities of the “Rules”. I know that you are also a strong proponent of ‘unrestricted Art’ in a sense that you believe that Art has no limitation. However, rules are necessary, not to inhibit Art in any way, but rather to distinguish an Artwork from an object of the daily world. One can achieve this goal by discovering the intentions of the person who created the object: his or her motive (Why or Why not?). Usually, the creator intends to do/create something per se to fulfill a certain criteria (only serving that which the creator is trying to achieve). You may ask: “Would anything be considered Art, if the creator intended for it to be so?” Of course, through the revelation of the intended actions of the creator, the Artwork becomes real in the realm of the Artworld. In doing so, one creates the Artworld in which the Artwork is not just identified to specific parts, but also identified as a whole (having the ability to stand on its own). Who ever said that Art should be limited to the rules of the daily world? Art should have to follow its own rules: its standards.
A sage once said to me that practice makes perfect. Your own theory correlates to this, you have reasoned that one’s innate inclinations were not enough to achieve the sublime; that time and time again one needs to practice the skills one acquired to go beyond: into the Sublime. In honing these skill one must be able to ‘open one’s eyes’ to different theories of Art. By doing so, one enriches oneself with new theories not seen before, enabling one to see the Artworld: its theories, identity and history.