Art's New Rules: Danto, McEvilley, Hickey on Beauty, Markets, and Diversity
Eudora
3
10-3Mia: You know, it's funny to think about how cultural conversations can just... pivot on a dime. The art world of the late 80s and early 90s was so intense, right? Full of these heavy debates about politics, money, and elitism. And then, almost overnight in the mid-90s, the hot topic became... beauty.
Mars: It's a classic case of cultural whiplash. It was a really significant shift. The conversation moved away from all those difficult, pressing issues and instead there was this big revival in writing about beauty. It perfectly mirrored the economic upswing and the rise of art that was more decorative, and frankly, more sellable.
Mia: So, was it really just about forgetting the hard stuff? Like a collective decision to just... move on?
Mars: In a way, yes. You could see that turn towards beauty as a way to sidestep the uncomfortable topics that had been weighing the art world down. It was almost like a collective exhale, a move towards aesthetics that were more palatable and, importantly, more commercially viable.
Mia: So while on the surface it seemed like a return to classic aesthetic appreciation, was this shift primarily driven by the economic recovery and marketability, or was there a deeper, maybe more deliberate, philosophical decision to move away from challenging political discourse?
Mars: I think it's a bit of both. The economic boom certainly created an appetite for art that was easier to consume and sell. But it also gave critics permission to revisit beauty as a legitimate subject. It was almost like they were hitting a philosophical reset button, trying to re-establish art's value in a less politically charged environment.
Mia: It’s fascinating how economic cycles can so directly influence what’s considered important in art criticism. This really sets the stage for understanding the key figures who were navigating this new landscape.
Mars: Exactly. And that brings us right to one of the central figures: the philosopher and art theorist Arthur Danto.
Mia: Right. In his book After the End of Art, Danto famously argued that art entered a post-historical phase around the 1970s. He said that with works like Andy Warhol's Brillo Boxes, you couldn't tell the art from the real thing just by looking, so art had to be defined philosophically instead of visually.
Mars: Danto's idea of art being post-historical is a huge concept. It essentially means art is no longer driven by this grand narrative of progress. It's not on a historical mission anymore. Instead, it exists in a kind of perpetual present where, philosophically speaking, anything goes.
Mia: So, Danto sees this as a kind of utopian freedom, where artists can create without the burden of historical progression. It’s a provocative idea, but how does this philosophical view of art's end contrast with other critics' perspectives, especially those who were focusing on global diversity?
Mars: Well, that's where someone like Thomas McEvilley comes in with a different, but weirdly complementary, take.
Mia: Shifting gears then, we look at Thomas McEvilley. In his work Art and Otherness, he championed the idea that the rise of global, non-Western voices dismantled all those old modernist certainties and allowed a new kind of postmodern diversity to flourish. He was very critical of what he saw as a singular, Western-focused modernism.
Mars: McEvilley's point about the end of one singular view of history is crucial. He saw it as a total liberation. It allowed for this rich tapestry of perspectives and a more anthropological approach to judging art, moving away from those rigid, old-school hierarchies of what's good.
Mia: That's interesting. So while Danto sees the end of history for art as a kind of settled philosophical state, McEvilley views the end of one singular view as an ongoing, dynamic process of embracing global diversity. Do these two seemingly different perspectives converge anywhere?
Mars: They absolutely do, and that's the key. They both arrive at a similar destination: that contemporary art is, in a sense, almost all right. For Danto, it's the freedom *from* the weight of historical progression. For McEvilley, it's the freedom *of* all these diverse, emerging global voices. Both end up celebrating this vast, unencompassable diversity as the defining good of contemporary art, even if they took different paths to get there.
Mia: It's fascinating how both of them, from their distinct lenses, land on a similar conclusion about the expansive nature of contemporary art. But this brings up the elephant in the room: what about the market, and the simple pleasure of beauty? That sounds more like Dave Hickey's territory.
Mars: Exactly. Hickey throws a real wrench in the academic works.
Mia: Okay, so let's turn to Dave Hickey. He’s known for his really engaging writing and for advocating a more relaxed view of the art world. In his book Air Guitar, he basically tells the academics to stop worrying so much about the art market, suggesting the big, beautiful art market is just a democratic reflection of popular taste.
Mars: Hickey's whole stance is about letting art thrive free from what he calls academic brow-creasing. He really champions the idea that art is for everyone, that beauty and enjoyment are paramount, and that the market is just a simple mechanism for people to get what they want from art.
Mia: He seems to equate market mechanisms with democracy, suggesting supply and demand truly reflect what the public desires. But critics would argue that's incredibly idealistic. The art market isn't a free-for-all; it's highly controlled, and we know education is a huge factor in who even goes to galleries. How does he square that populist view with reality?
Mars: That’s the central tension in his work. His view is appealing, but it does gloss over the real-world workings of social distinction, money, and power. He famously said, Art ain't rocket science, implying anyone can get it. But as you said, education is a huge determinant of gallery attendance, and a lot of art is dense with historical references. The irony, of course, is that Hickey himself holds a PhD, so he’s hardly an outsider to the very system he critiques. His promotion of beauty and the market is powerful, but it definitely sidesteps some of those uncomfortable truths about access.
Mia: So it's clear Hickey offers this refreshing counterpoint to more academic critiques by prioritizing enjoyment. But we have Danto's post-historical art, McEvilley's embrace of pluralism, and Hickey's defense of beauty and the market. All three, in their own ways, seem to conclude that contemporary art is almost all right.
Mars: It's a remarkable convergence. To sum it all up, you have a few key things happening. First, that big shift in the mid-90s away from politics toward beauty, largely powered by the economy. Then you have Danto arguing art is post-historical, freed from its past and defined by philosophy. McEvilley counters that it's not the end of history, but the end of one *singular* history, thanks to the rise of global voices. And finally, you have Hickey telling everyone to relax and embrace the market as a democratic force for beauty and pleasure. Despite their wildly different routes, all three critics basically land on the idea that the defining feature of the art world is its glorious, chaotic diversity, and that's a good thing.