Apart from small distinctions including the web page quantity in the 1st photo plus the Address “poorlydrawnlines.com” into the 2nd, those two comics look basically exactly the same, right? Incorrect. The comic that is second various measurements (dependent on my web browser settings – currently I’ve blown it as much as 24 ? 24 cm), its color tones are very different (according to my monitor settings), light is mirrored differently off its area, it also glows by itself… Not to point out different feel and odor. And yet, a lot of people would state both are identical comic, “Stereotype” by Reza Farazmand.
Would Danto agree? Does he even give consideration to two copies of the numerous to function as the work that is same of, two copies of a guide for example? He does, e.g. On p. 33:
I am able to, as an example, burn off a duplicate of this guide for which a poem is printed, however it is definately not clear that by doing this We have burned right off the poem, as it appears ordinary that though the web page ended up being damaged, the poem had not been; and although it exists elsewhere, state an additional content, the poem cannot just be identical with this content. For the reason that is same it is not identified with all the pages simply burned. … Often sufficient poets and philosophers have actually looked at artworks as hence just tenuously associated with their embodiments.
Doesn’t this contradict the focus Danto sets on“the real means this content is presented” (see above)? Or does not he count himself on the list of “poets and philosophers” who dismiss the real type of an artwork? On p. 93-94 it looks like he does:
Cohen has expected that Duchamp’s tasks are maybe not the urinal at all however the gesture of exhibiting it; together with motion, if it certainly may be the work, doesn’t have surfaces that are gleaming speak of …. But definitely the work it self has properties that urinals by themselves lack: it’s bold, impudent, irreverent, witty, and clever.