In Response to Jacob's Question #2 (Week 7)

The concept of an artworld having to exist in order for there to be art seems contradictory because without art there would be no artworld. This having been said, it seems impossible for an artworld to exist without art, but from Danto’s perspective an artworld must be in place in order to have an appreciation and classification of something that we consider to be art. Danto’s claim of an artworld having to exist in order for there to be art and art creating the artworld reminds me of the “which came first, the chicken or the egg?” question. Artists are needed to create art. The artworld according to Danto is a combination of artistic theory and art history. Personally, I do not see how Danto could justify the case that there must be an artistic theory before there is art unless he was saying so from a contemporary perspective. This would mean that art did exist prior to any artistic theory and that artistic theory developed from the first art pieces ever created. With theories developed from the very first artworks and the knowledge of the history of those artworks, an artworld was created which has served as a basis from there on out. In modern days, we adjust our ideas on artistic theories and art history based on all of the art which has come before the present day. This seems to be the most logical explanation as to why Danto makes the claim about the existence of an artworld to be a necessity in the creation of art. How do you think Danto would justify this apparent contradiction if he were asked this question directly?