The relationship between Arthur C. Danto’s analytical aesthetics and Wittgenstein’s philosophy is often reduced to the dispute concerning the essence of art, leading to the neglect of crucial points of positive connection between the two philosophers. Sonia Sedivy (2022) recently highlighted the influence of Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations on Danto’s contextually framed definition of art. It will be shown that the understanding of this proximity between Danto and Wittgenstein can be …
Read moreThe relationship between Arthur C. Danto’s analytical aesthetics and Wittgenstein’s philosophy is often reduced to the dispute concerning the essence of art, leading to the neglect of crucial points of positive connection between the two philosophers. Sonia Sedivy (2022) recently highlighted the influence of Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations on Danto’s contextually framed definition of art. It will be shown that the understanding of this proximity between Danto and Wittgenstein can be further deepened through Rudolf Haller’s reflections on aesthetic attitude. It becomes apparent that the conceptions of art of both Danto and Wittgenstein encompass a distinct form of intentionality, viewing the object from an unusual perspective. This results in the generation of a meaning that cannot be grasped by description. Referencing Haller, this article aims to demonstrate that Danto’s understanding of art is much more closely aligned with Wittgenstein’s than is commonly portrayed.
