Another Paper

The Rest of Art (and its Function in Society)

Over a decade ago, Arthur Danto announced that art history had come to an end. In his book of essays, Encounters and Reflections: Art in the Historical Present, Danto suggests that art history has completed itself in the sense that it has achieved what it set out to accomplish. German sociologist Niklas Luhmann developed a social theory for art (briefly noted in Art in Theory 1900-2000), which involves a system that functions according to a set of activities that are unique to itself, yet operates within the larger social structure of society. In this essay, I will concern myself with Luhmann’s theory for art’s social function in comparison with Danto’s suggestion that we have completed art history. If we really have come to the end of art, what then, is the function of art within our society? What does this mean for the future of art?

Danto believes that our present state of confusion over the subject of art is due to the opaque terms of the postmodern times, along with the acknowledgement that we often engage with works of art in hindsight. Present times are defined by the fact that art has ended because we are incapable of understanding what it is like to make or define art without understanding the post phase of history in which we are now living. Danto believes that Avant-garde art has been motivated by the urge to become self-conscious of itself while also struggling to become its own philosophy – using Warhol’s installation of Brillo Boxes as his example. Warhol’s boxes demonstrated to Danto that what turns ordinary objects into works of art is a theory. Danto’s explanation of what Warhol’s artwork demonstrated was the final conclusion to art history’s project of philosophical self-discovery; and if Danto’s philosophical work has completed the story of art history, art history has in turn become philosophy. Through this transformation Danto thinks that there is no need for artists to feel as though they must contribute to art history, or to transform their culture through art. If this is the case, what is the function of art within our society? Is it purely a philosophical one? I personally believe that there is more to art than just a theory, and I also don’t think that all contemporary works of art can be pushed into the realm of philosophy; but I am intrigued by what lies ahead for the world of art as well as the perceived function of art within society.

Luhmann’s theory creates a set of distinctions for determining what counts as art, that which can be valid for both those creating as well as those viewing works of art. He begins with the idea that all of art is rooted in perception. He insists on the radical incommensurability between psychic systems (perception) and social systems (communication). Art is a special kind of communication that uses perceptions instead of language. It operates at the boundary between the social system and consciousness in ways that profoundly irritate communication while remaining strictly internal to the social system. Luhmann defines the system of art to be autopoietic, or “self-referential.” Therefore, the art system not only operates according to its own internal functions, but also generates these functions through self-organizing activities. This means that although the art system might interact with other systems it ultimately produces meaning on it own terms, and thus cannot be replaced by another system. Luhmann notes that art is certainly not free of function, but is also hesitant to place a definitive function upon it. In an undefined sense he regards the function of art as “the confrontation of reality (familiar to everyone) with a different version of that reality” (p. 1079). This coincides with the complexity of a world (art world) within a world (society), however it merits its own set of problems based upon one’s definition of reality. Luhmann notes, as well as Danto, that most of contemporary art has reached a stage of development where self-reflection is the primary subject matter. Western culture is one that is obsessed with itself, so I suppose that it is only natural that it be the focal point of our art.

I was unable to satisfy an agreeable explanation for the function of art through either of these readings, and naturally, such a brief account cannot do full justice to the complexity of my argument. However, I felt that both Danto and Luhmann proposed compelling ideas about the way in which the art world operates. I think that art is just another way to think, and that it challenges conventional ways of seeing, communicating, and understanding. It cannot be defined in its form or function within society and yet it continues to provoke these kinds of discussion – so I suppose that in a sense, it is philosophical. Perhaps a better question to ask is not “what is art?” or “what is art’s function?” but why do we (Western culture) continue to obsess over quest for the indefinable? I would propose that it is because we are always seeking for something new, something to further ourselves – to make us “whole” one might say. I’d like to close by pushing this question even further by stating that if art history has indeed completed its mission and therefore come to an end, and that the primary function of art has a philosophical tone, what does this mean for the future of our art? Won’t we get tired of hearing the same old arguments being made about art (and also being made in the art) or will the changing tides of Western culture be sufficient enough to change and develop our art in new and exciting ways? This proposition is yet another question that we are unable to answer due to what Danto says are the opaque terms of the postmodern times as well as the benefit of seeing in hindsight. They are still, nonetheless, important questions on our quest for the indefinable. I think the “end of art” – defined as art no longer having an important function within society (whatever that may be) – will not be realized until we (society as a whole) has come to complete our mission. That which is the search for “wholeness” and that, in essence, will not be realized until the end of time.