Analysis of Danto's Historical-Hegelian Narrative of the Transfiguration of the Commonplace into Artwork

Arthur Danto in order to achieve the definition of art, while rejecting previous views and clearly opposing the essentialism of the concept of art, seeks a new explanation in challenging contemporary artworks with a completely different view. By turning away from Kant's point of view, which dominated the theories of art until the middle of the 20th century, he bases his theory under the influence of Hegel and based on the historical context of the process of transfiguration of the ordinary object to an artwork. Based on this, a historical, cultural, and social context is necessary for the objects to acquire the legitimacy of being an artwork. From his point of view, a new narrative of an ordinary thing emerges through the artist's way of looking at the ordinary thing (in the historical context) and the way he presents it, and he transforms it into an embodied concept and meaning, which leads to the transformation into a work of art. The excessive emphasis of his theory on subjectivism causes personal interpretations and relativism. This article follows the question of “what makes a work of art, a work of art?”, by examining and explain Danto's opinions, while pointing to the works of art referred to by him, I try to describe the factors influencing his theory to finally analyze some of the flaws in this perception of the concept of art.