According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
The groundwork for institutional definitions was laid by Arthur Danto, better known to non-philosophers as the long-time influential art critic for the Nation. Danto coined the term “artworld”, by which he meant “an atmosphere of art theory.” Danto’s definition has been glossed as follows: something is a work of art if and only if (i) it has a subject (ii) about which it projects some attitude or point of view (has a style) (iii) by means of rhetorical ellipsis (usually metaphorical) which ellipsis engages audience participation in filling in what is missing, and (iv) where the work in question and the interpretations thereof require an art historical context (Danto, Carroll). Clause (iv) is what makes the definition institutionalist. The view has been criticized for entailing that art criticism written in a highly rhetorical style is art, lacking but requiring an independent account of what makes a context art historical, and for not applying to music.
What does 'require' mean here?
I totally see how some interpretations require a historical art context: in as much as some interpretations use that context. So does 'require' just mean contingently involve?
Music doesn't fit the bill, and are there any other arts that don't? I seem able to understand, however superficially, e.g., literature, without its (or art's) history, in a way that any interpretation of the literature must, i.e. parse or utter sentences in a language.
So does Danto's claim amount to the fact that some interpretations, and so art works, are more historical, more art: a continuum of types (art and non-art)?
