Daniella Ysabel B.

dela Cruz

112039

On Adlers Enjoyable and Admirable Beauty and Dantos The End of Art
The readings by Adler and Danto discuss concepts of art that a simple spectator may simply
overlook. Adler mentions the enjoyable and the admirable; he differentiates the two with the use of
philosophical definitions. His approach is simple and clear. The enjoyable is ones subjective view of an
artwork while the admirable tackles the intrinsic excellence of a piece and how it is accepted as
universally beautiful. Danto on the other hand, talks about something more complex. The End of Art tells
of the authors attempts to clarify what exactly ends art. He seeks to answer the question that if anything
one does is considered art, then does this signify arts end? Danto uses several arguments to answer the
said question, namely: quality, aesthetics, and art and philosophy. Both readings seek to inform its
readers about how to, in a way, ingest art accordingly. Adler defines what we deem enjoyable and
admirable, while Danto defines the lines of what art has come to exactly. It all boils down to how one
perceives a piece. Art is a personal experience. What one may see as beautiful may be puzzling to the
next viewer. However this does not take away from the fact that a piece will have to undergo a quiet
judgement in its form and of the conceptual idea surrounding its creation. I believe that it is through this
process that one can truly enjoy art as art, both enjoyable and admirable and very much alive.
There of course exists, a group of people against the establishment of rules that they feel restrict
art. These people want art to be free, as if it was in shackles currently. I do not share the same views. Art
is free. Without freedom, art may not even persist. However, freedom in this sense does not simply rely
on the eradication of standards. Sans standards, one is playing right into Dantos game, The End of Art. If
we achieve freedom through liberally creating without an objective point of view and expect people to
appreciate the work and desire for it to be placed in a gallery or museum, I believe the acquisition of a
new point of view should occur. Danto uses Warhols Brillo Box as an example of how an artworks
essence is being dictated by the venue or location. What makes Warhols Brillo Box different from the
Brillo Box that isnt part of his piece (especially when they are aesthetically the same thing)? One can
perhaps think of a situation of simply picking up a random object, calling it art and therefore it now exists
in time and space as a creative labor. There are of course people who believe that art is so inclusive of
these kinds of artists works and consider these as high art. However, one can argue with Hegels belief
as pointed out by Danto that art, by its own means alone, was able to present even the highest realities
in sensuous form. This means that art should be a representation of a higher reality. There are certain
modern works that do not fulfil this philosophy, but is loved and admired by its own following. It is in this
kind of disparity that we can cite Adlers definitions of what if enjoyable and admirable. One may feel as if
a certain piece speaks to him in a way that another cannot. This is in a nutshell, enjoyable beauty. It
thrives in subjectivity. Admirable beauty on the other hand acclimates itself to pieces that have certain
properties that are deemed admirable. As Ive mentioned before, art is a personal experience. One may
be able to relate to a piece that completely alienated another. However, I believe that for art to continue to
thrive and unite people into understanding, critiquing, and creating more amazing works of art, people that
are involved in the production of pieces and also of experiencing art should understand that no prestige or
a sense of creative freedom is taken away from a work that is universally enjoyed. As Adler put it, the
more admirable or beautiful an object is in itself, the more enjoyable it must be universally.