Testadura The Artworld Analysis

Danto begins “The Artworld” by going after Socrates’ and Plato’s view of art as imitation or a mirror. He calls this the “Imitation Theory” or “IT”. If this were accurate then any image reflected in a mirror would also be considered an artwork. Although, many artists during Socrates’ and Plato’s time and later tried to imitate nature into their art. The advancements of photography ultimately ended this as an artform and proved the Imitation Theory to be false.
Since imitation was not their goal, modern art, mainly post-impressionist works challenged the Imitation Theory. Therefore, there had to be a new theory created to show why these works were actually art. The “Reality Theory,” or RT, didn’t even attempt to show artworks were imitations
Testadura doesn’t the black and white painting as such but he sees as just white and black paint. The same goes for the 10th street abstractionist views that are very similar to Testadura’s. Although, the 10th street abstractionist is held to a higher standard because of his higher level of knowledge on art than Testadura. Testadura and the 10th street abstractionist can have the same opinion but with different reaction/context. This goes back to the differentiation of the imitation theory. To see the different caliber of identical opinions. Danto goes on to argue through the Reality theory how Testadura is wrong for just identifying the paint and not the art.
Danto’s own account in this case comes from the Newton’s 1st and 3rd law paintings. Danto uses these paintings as an example to differentiate two identical objects based on the knowledge that they are theoretically two different things. In one of the paintings, the line in the middle “is” the path of a particle. In the other painting, the two squares “are” forces pressing against one another. Danto refers to the “is” in these examples as “the ‘is’ of artistic identification”. Testadura must understand the “is” here in order to fully understand
This theory of art also involves art historical knowledge and being able to see something as art. As I have suggested, it is not clearly stated, but seems to be of the following: something is art if it can be perceived as art by way of the art appreciators knowledge of the history of art so that history leads up to this work and so the appreciator can see it according to the "is" of artistic identification. The "is" of artistic identification is actually imaginative as it includes make believe situations and not only works of art. Danto states how Testadura is not yet to the stage of truly understanding something for more than just what it appears and claims how, “to see something as art requires something the eye cannot decry--an atmosphere of artistic theory, a knowledge of the history of an art: an artworld”