The Role of Warhol’s Brillo soap boxes on the Contemporary Aesthetics, based on the “Applied Ontology” Theory of Roger Pouivet

Introduction

All philosophical studies that have ontological approach to the art aesthetics have discriminated the artistic identity from the non-artistic identity of man-made works. This has seriously involved philosophers from the past to the present, and has aroused different theories and solutions. Furthermore, there has not been any definitive answer to the question of “What is Art?” Alternatively “what can be accepted as an artwork?” up to now. As the contemporary French philosopher, J. Rancière (1940) sayed: «Aesthetics has a very negative credit. There has not been even a year without a new essay, announcing that aesthetics time has been over. Although, all those arguments, against aesthetics are the same, they will remain the subject of much more controversies, in philosophical discipline; in order to interpret and judge of artworks in line with their favorite theories.» (Ranciere, 2004, p. 9). In contemporary age, the efforts to answer the question of “what is an art work?” seems to be in vain. Therefore, this paper tried to answer it according to theory of “Applied Ontology” by Roger Pouivet (1958), the French philosopher. The theory considered noteworthy in the art world, over the last two decades and emphasizes that an artwork should be considered as it is and all those philosophical artistic aesthetic theories introducing an object as an artwork, should be overlooked. Indefinability of ontology of art, self-identity of every artwork and undeniable role of audience in explaining the concept and identity of an artwork are the principles of the theory. Regarding Pouivete’s “Applied Ontology” Theory, two research questions were raised: 1. In the contemporary age, what aesthetic criteria turn a man-made work into an artwork? 2. How a contemporary artwork is considered as the personal symbols of the artist and how aesthetic aspects of the work are received?

In This study, we tried to answer the questions and to investigate how the audience receives the concept of an artwork. We used an analytical-qualitative method to prove the hypothesis raised by proposed theory.

The findings shows that contemporary aesthetics is essentially, what is received by the audience of contemporary art, and recognizing art as a personal and collective symbol is a new unique experience.

Library Research

The present study is conducted based on the “Applied Ontology” theory of the contemporary French philosopher Roger Pouivet, and most of the sources, papers and books, cited, as references are originally in French language.

The book l’œuvre d’art à l’âge de sa mondialisation: un essai d’ontologie de l’art de masse (Artwork in the Age of Globalization: An Essay on the Ontology of Mass Art) by Roger Pouivet; is the most significant reference of the present paper in which the French philosopher proposed the theory of “Applied Ontology” in Art. The book was published by La lettre volée in 2003 in Brussels. The topic of the book has formed the theoretical basis of the paper. Additionally the main topics of Pouivet’s essay, related to the aesthetics and critique of Contemporary art were used in conducting the current paper.

Après la fin de l’art (After the End of Art) by Arthur Danto (1924-2013), the American philosopher who worked in the field of Analytical philosophy and the aesthetics of Contemporary art, is another reference of the paper. The book, published by SEUIL, Paris in 1996, reflects Arthur Danto’s beliefs about Analytical philosophy and “Applied Ontology” in Art, in which Danto explained important ontological theories of Art in a clear understandable way. The topics of the book are used as positive and analytical references.

“Sartre, les arts plastiques et l’engagement” (Sartre, Visual Arts and Commitment) by Dominique Berthet (1946), a paper from the collection of Changer l’art Transformer la société: Art et Politique (Change in Art would Change the Society: Art and Politics) 2, Published in 2009 by L’Harmattan Publishing in Paris has been also cited. Berthet investigated Sartre’s aesthetic point of views in art through referring Sartre’s essays in which the author has criticized several modern and contemporary artists from different styles and schools of art. We inferred from the Berthet’s paper that unlike many of his contemporaries, Sartre’s theory is remarkable and practical because it concentrates on the process of creating an artwork, not on the principles of form, content, or artistic perception. Sartre identifies form, content and artistic perception under the banner of creating artwork.

Another noteworthy source is the book Malaise dans l’esthétique (Unpleasant in aesthetics) by Jacques Rancière, published in 2004 by Gallilée Publishing in Paris, which examines the theories of ontological beauty in aesthetics. In this book, Rancière attempted to explain the characteristics and criteria required for a work to become an artwork. He examined unsolvable contradictions in the nature of those theories. He also stated the challenges related to the West aesthetic issues.

The paper “Aesthetics and Modern Art” which was published in 2008 in the specialized journal in Tehran: The Month book of Art, no. 138 by Dr. Hoda Zabolinezhad (1984), the author according to the contemporary philosophical theories related to Modern art and the traditional ontological theories rejected the act of recognition of beauty as the main issue of becoming a man-made work as an artwork.

Florence de Mèredieu (1944), in the book ARTS ET NOUVELLES TECHNOLOGIES: ART VIDÉO, ART NUMÉRIQUE (New Art and Technologies: Video Art and Digital Art), has provided comprehensive information about how technological advances have facilitated the formation of new arts. She also explained how enlightenment and thinking might be achieved through technological developments in a society that is called “les changements de paradigm” in France, and covers a wide range of topics from art to political issues. LAROUSSE Publishing in Paris published the book in 2005.

Contemporary Aesthetics after Brillo soap boxes

What develops as an artist’s personality art is part of everyday life. However, artists nowadays design their own processes of creating artworks that is also closely related to the creativity and life cycles of artists. We are all the fruits of the epoch in which we were born and raised, but what we are and what we bring about to emerge in our an artistic creations, has not been inherited necessarily from our historical past. Artists often incorporates their daily life into their artwork, which not only originates from his surroundings, but it also depicts artist’s unique and pure personality. It is interesting that an artist like Henry Matisse (1869-1954), who takes full advantage of absolute freedom in creation of his artworks, believes that the environment around him as well as the historical context to which he belongs inspires creativity. He writes: «Our senses are not controlled only by current environment, but also it originate from our civilization ... The art results from development and is derived only from identity and all the power drives it, arises from a civilization that existed before us. We cannot do everything we wish unless it already exists and there is nothing but it. We are not owners of our products, but they have entered into us.» (Matisse, 1972, p .128). In fact, Matisse calls into question all the absolute freedom that seems to be necessary for creating an artwork. If Matisse’s statement means that artworks are closely related to the period they are created in, and those objects, which are familiar to us in our everyday lives, can be considered as art, Just as Andy Warhol’s (1928-1987) Brillo soap boxes were considered as an artwork in the 1960s, we may agree with Matisse’s point of view. Indisputably, every products made by human being, artistic and non-artistic ones, are connected with the time they are produced in. However, there are also some arguments against Matisse’s viewpoint. When he explicitly states: « [...] we are not the owner of our products, but they have already entered into us.» (Matisse, 1972, p .128). Because nowadays, all artists and experts strongly believe that absolute freedom plays a major role in creation of an artwork.

From the beginning, all philosophical studies, with an ontological approach, have done in purpose of discriminating artworks from those that does not fall into this field. The trend has been focusing on beauty as the pivot of art so far. This is going to be left behind in contemporary aesthetics. As Arthur Danto, professor of philosophy of art at Columbia University in the United States, said: «There is no means to recognize instantly whether a work is an artwork in or it may be considered as an artwork, somewhere in historical moment.» (Danto, 1996, p. 35)

Today's, it can be stated that there is no absolute answer to the question of what can be considered as an artwork. Without any doubt, the answer stems from the specific characteristics of the time in which we live. Moreover, with the emerging of different schools, methods, and artistic movements, the conventional practice of classification in the field of art are gradually disappeared. Therefore, in the absence of the main index of classification, introduced by Hegel (1770-1831) in the age of Enlightenment, as an infrastructure of historical studies, it can be declared that art history is over.

A. Danto declared that in contemporary the questions of “What is Art” and what is “an artwork” seem completely irrational and useless. Instead, one can consider Pouivete’s theory of “Applied Ontology”, which has been noted during the last two decades throughout art world and especially in France. According to Pouivete’s theory, when we face with an artwork, it should be considered as it is and all those philosophical aesthetic theories credit an object as an artwork or discredit it as a worthless work, should be disregarded. Indefinability of ontology of art, self-identity of every artwork and undeniable role of audience in explaining the concept and identity of an artwork are the principles of the theory. Accordingly, the role of the audience in understanding and explaining the concept of the artwork is of importance. Even though, an audience is an expert of aesthetic theories of art or a well-known art critic, he/she is not yet entitled to say whether an object falls into category of artworks. As Pouivete wrote: «Basically, Applied Ontology theory is an ongoing cognitive question about the nature and identity of something that can be proposed in a variety of contexts; “Like quark particles, an embryo, the boundaries of a realm or an artwork.» (Pouviet, 2003, p. 18)

In any case, if there are experts who might declare that an object is not an artwork, there will be so many experts who may give a different opinion. That is because there are different perceptions of an object in the art world, like what happened to Andy Warhol’s soap boxes. Now that we talked about the role of the audience in perceiving of an artwork, we need to focus on fundamental and complementary role of non-exert audiences (outside the art world), in creation and perception of artworks. This make us sensitive to the issue of art educating and is emphasized twice by Roger Pouivet and some other professionals of Analytic philosophy. They emphasized that one, as audience of an artwork, should be at least familiar to the alphabet of Modern art to acquire an accurate reception. Picasso (1881-1973), analogize art to Chinese: «Art is just like Chinese, which must be learned.» (Picasso, 2017).

Contemporary critic Elizabeth Courtier, in her book L’art contemporain mode d’emploi, stated: «Every artwork is like an open book, and it is up to us to learn the principles, rules and codes of its language and the way they used» (Couturier, 2004, 46). According to Courtier, this complementary role of the audience in perceiving an artwork is quite obvious, and has been emphasized by other experts. This shows itself more in artistic movement like Ready Made, in which artistic creation is absent in particular. «If an artwork has two poles, the Ready Made movement removes the artistic creation pole, and thus the artist presented every object as an artwork. It seems that the creation of an artwork focuses only on the second pole, audience perception.» (Théval, 2017)

There are always positive and negative arguments about the nature of a work and opinion of artists, critics, gallery owners, art teachers, and art reporters eventually introduce a work as an artwork in the art world. The point is that, these arguments and exchange of opinions, taking place in the realm of art world, are not evidence based and have less validity outside, in the society. It should be noted that experts in the art world are not always unanimous. The best example is Andy Warhol’s Brilloe’s soap boxes. In 1965, a year after the work was created, Jerold Morris, an art dealer in Toronto and organizer of the Extraordinary Sculpture Exhibition, attempted to import it into Canada, but Canadian customs officials did not verified it as a valid artwork and told it must be taxed like any other commercial item to be brought in to Canadian. Morris objected and the work was handed over to Dr. Charles Comfort (1900-1994), president of the National Gallery of Canada, to be decided whether it will verified as an artwork. Surprisingly, he did not endorse what we know today the initiator of Contemporary art as an artwork. He stated: «I can easily see that this is not a sculptural object.» (Danto, 1996). This indicates that to what extent opinions can be deep different about a work in the art world. A work, by Andy Warhol, was not even verified as an artwork by the president of the National Gallery of Canada, while Gerold Morris, art dealer and organizer of official art exhibition in Canada, saw it as an extraordinary installation, which was worth showing in the exhibition. Morris and Comfort, the two influential experts of the art world, never came to an agreement on this, and passing of time proved that Morris was right.

The installation of Brillo soap boxes is a work of painted wood and screen printing on it, which is designed and made exactly in the shape and size of the real boxes and it was arranged in the same way it was stacked in a supermarket. The work is being compared to a collage by Picasso (1912), Suze bottle labels. It also resembles to a Ready Made work, Men’s Toilet (Fontaine), created by Marcel Duchamp’s (1887-1967), as an artwork.

In soap boxes work, Warhol (Pop school artist) brought to the fore a mechanical structure copied from a commercial object. The work then was subjected to strict criticisms by prominent members of the art world, “What is the need for rebuild of these boxes?” Moreover, the artist could have signed and presented the real boxes like the Ready Made movement do, the time of the movement has been over, and the presentation of such a work of art are essentially unnecessary, or the work is repetitive and tedious. In response to this huge volume of criticism, Danto raises this question in his book Le monde de l’art (The World of Art): «If we can have a bronze copy of a human body, then why not Brillo soap boxes?» (Danto, 2012, p. 103)

Although, the left movements and the communists, see the work as an objection to consumerism age, in which the contemporary human is controlled slavishly by mega companies that promoted massive consumerism, Warhol’s work does not mean it not at all. Warhol intended to bridge the wide gap between popular culture and art world culture that really existed or believed to be existed at that time. The artist reminded the audience that every commercial product, which is trivial and worthless in the public eye, is potentially of aesthetic value that need to be scrutinized. Because, from Warhol’s point of view, Contemporary art is not separate from popular culture, and this is incidentally due to the common features of the epoch in which we live. Like Duchamp, who strived to narrow the gap between Fine arts, Decorative arts, Applied arts, and Industry products as well through Ready Made movement, and to remind his audiences that art of his time is omnipresent, so that a simple signature on a men’s toilet, changes it to an artwork, Warhol tried to draw public attention to the fact that art inevitably reflects the feature of the age in which it is created. If the contemporary age is the age of consumerism, why does not Contemporary art reflect this? Of course, it should not be neglected that what credited Brillo soap boxes, as an artwork, are contemporary aesthetic theories such as “Applied Ontology”. Additionally, the special symbolizing of Warhol, made the work to be recognized the initial of Contemporary art age.

In fact, the introduction of the work coincided with the advent of contemporary aesthetic theories that overlooked former ontological theories in art, and dealt only with the artwork itself. It seems that some of these theories originated from the introduction of Warhol’s work to the art world. Regarding the role of the Contemporary art theories in introducing a work as an artwork, Danto writes: «I believe that painters of Lascaux Cave had no idea that they were creating artworks, because in the Neolithic age, there was no aesthetics to credited those works as artworks.» (Danto, 2012, p. 128)

It should be borne in mind that when George Dickey (1915-1976), a contemporary American philosopher, made his speech about Analytical philosophy in the art world, he undisputedly referred to the professionals of artistic culture in every country and, of course, the dominant art culture. Dickey also believed that a work would be accepted as an artwork in a culture if it achieves the acceptance of the art world, which is quite close to Pouivete’s theory of “Applied Ontology” in art. What authenticates an object like a painting, sculpture, installation, or a virtual work like a video, a hologram, a slide, etc., is not a definite verdict that announces it an artwork, but it is being the subject of arguments among prominent members of the art world. There is a quote from Richard Wellheim (1923-2003) in his book Painting as Art that is «Is it irrefutable that members of the art world have always rational reasons for what they do?” or they are successful in everything they do? [...] If so, then logical reasons are all we need to know to understand what a painting as an artwork means. In the meanwhile, are members of the art world still useful?» (Wolheim, 1987, p. 14). On the other hand, the role of time should not be neglected. Time makes it possible to consider a work as an artwork. It is obvious that considering a men’s toilet as an artwork (Marcel Duchamp’s Fountain) was quite out of the noetic realm of the 19th century, but it was ready to happen in the early 20th century.

The artwork as a symbol

Regarding the two theories, “Applied Ontology” and Analytical philosophy, a mix of personal symbols and already known collective symbols of a culture together plays a major role in the process of creating an artwork. In the other words, creating an artwork is truly the same as symbolizing. Here, it is necessary to distinguish between the concepts of “symbol” and “sign”, because misunderstanding or mixing the tow concepts, may distort the discussion. If we consider “sign” as the effect of something, “symbol” sits in for a particular meaning or concept. Usually the meaning of a “sign” is single and definite, but one can never be 100 percent sure of what a symbol means, and whether or not it conveys the whole meaning. For example, when we find a dog’s footprint, we will definitely conclude that a dog has passed through. When we see an injury on a person’s face, we realize that something must happen to him. Thus, footprint and injury are both signs that something happened. However, a symbol is not as easy as to interpret or conclude. «Every culture has its own symbols that may vary from person to person from time to time, or from one subculture to another. For example, white in Western culture is the symbol of happiness and the color for bride’s dress, while in Indian culture the same color symbolizes mourning and the loss of a loved one. Today, because of a dominance of a global culture that is mostly Western, in all over the world, even in India, brides wear white dress. In Iran, before the supremacy of global western culture, brides often used to wear robe in green colors. Because green signifies happiness, vitality and fertility in Iranian traditional culture.» (Zabolinezhad, 2018, p. 52)

In this respect, when social scientists examine an artwork, they often overlook its aesthetic value. They are interested to see to what extent the work indicate the main features of its contemporary age. Today, the main point is that if an artwork or a collection of artworks can be considered as indicative of the symbols, derived from contemporary human thought. The answer can be positive and negative. To clarify it more, we refer to the detailed perception in Pouivete’s theory of “Applied Ontology” and to non-cognitive arguments in Arthur Danto’s Analytical philosophy. According to the theories, the sole artwork itself should be considered as a personal or collective symbol. Seeking outside the work to attribute a specific meaning to it will be helpful by no means, unless, the artist intentionally directs the audience to the word outside, through the symbolic codes within hidden layers of the work using as source of knowledge. This means that the audience should be guided by the work itself to seek the perception outside the work, rather than attributing their desired external meanings to the artworks.

Artworks always show plenty of familiar or unfamiliar hidden symbolic layers to their audience that need to be decoded by them. Therefore, all works of art have a symbolic aspect no matter if they are personal or collective. What distinguishes Modern and later artworks from earlier ones in art history, are these collective or personal symbols representing the culture they come from.

During the period of Humanism, in which individualism intruded more and more in human thoughts and found its special place, fundamental changes occurred in the process of creating artworks. From the beginning of the 20th century and outset of Modern art, collective symbolism has increasingly replaced personal symbolism in artworks. Collective symbolism including symbols that have a common significance and meaning in a particular public culture or even throughout the globe. «New abstract, figurative and compositional forms of Modern art are also be generalized to the infinite freedom that artists attached to themselves, a freedom that knows no boundaries to limit the artist and allows them to dig in to unknown and less known life aspects of their human subjects and experience any unexperienced way.» (Zabolinezhad, 2008, p. 38)

A text by Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980), the contemporary French philosopher, which has written between 1946 and 1970 about personal symbolism of modern and contemporary artists in the process of creating their artworks, seems worthy. Looking at the list of artists that Sartre wrote about them, we ask ourselves, “What do they have in common”? In a glance, there is nothing, not their artistic school, nor the artistic movement and tendency to which they belong. This is the key point in Sartre’s aesthetics that the common point of all these artists is the unconditional freedom that forms the core identity of Modern art. All these artists went beyond the boundaries and even extended them further. In fact, thanks to this unconditional freedom, they became all pioneers of Modern, Postmodern and Contemporary art.

As Dominique Berthet writes in “Sartre, Visual Arts and Commitment” article: «His approach to the artwork is neither scientific nor historical. It is entirely personal.» (Berthet, 2009, p. 16). Studying Sartre’s essays about artists, shows that he has addressed first the issue of personality and individuality of every artist and then the commitment of each to his artistic point of view. He writes: Individuality is the most important issue in art. When we want to know an artist through his artwork, the only possible way is to apply the methods of “progression and regression” simultaneously. For painting and text, we analyze the character of the creator of the work, and then we address the created work itself and analyze it step by step». (Sartre, 1948, p. 67). It can be seen that, Sartre, in his art critiques and literatures, always examines first the personal views and social and political orientations of the authors or artist that is undoubtedly a reflection of artist’s lifestyle and everyday life. We agree with Sartre that an artist chooses a visual style for reasons that are entirely personal and specific to him and through them depicts personal created symbolic forms. These symbolic forms are often more perceptible to the audience who is from the artist’s culture than an audience that does not belong to it.

Face with contemporary artworks, the audience have to notice that the works have symbolic meanings hidden in their vague layers need to be found, for translation of a symbolic thought the work try to convey. «New art, with all its new possibilities and facilities, always insists to bold the global pressing matters such as freedom, the environment, nuclear dangers, Feminism. […]. Art critics, experts and exhibitions organizers often acknowledge the aggressive attitude of artists toward many human issues. They believe that contemporary art is returning to the emotional commitments of the Romantic period.» (Lucie-Smith, 2005, p. 10). According to “Applied Ontology” theory and Analytical philosophy, process of symbolism in Contemporary art is related to “manifestation” and “expression” concepts of personal symbolism. «All these statements are truly demonstration of an external sign for an internal situation. That’s the meaning I get from the statement.» (Danto, 1996, p. 68). Accordingly, it is inferred that all human works, including the creation of artworks, are derived from one of aforementioned concepts, but not from both at the same time. To distinguish this fundamental distinction in Analytic philosophy, the purpose of the action must be considered. If the action is intentionally done in the purpose of communicating with others, then this action falls into “expressive concept”. Therefore, it is as follows: 1. Operator (human factor), 2. Reason or motivation for action: establishing relationships with others, 3. Personal action: communication action, 4. The presence of spectators or audiences.

This is a scheme of the process of creating an artwork by an artist or a writer and is quite similar the same for Literature and Art. Additionally, the place of presentation of the work must be considered. Where the creator-targeted audience is present to receive or read the work. Thus, if we omit the stimulus of action, which is to communicate with others, we come to the “manifest concept”. As the action by the actor, is nothing but personal habits that stem from actor’s character without any purpose of interacting with a presumed audience.

However, both actions show the attitude of the human to his environment, but the stimulus are different, and this is the exact point. The second diagram that shows the “manifestation” concept is as follows:

1. Human actor, 2. Motivator of action: personal habit of the human, 3. Personal action: no communication, 4. Location of the action is not important.

To clarify it, the work of American activist artist Jackson Pollock (1912-1956) is compared to his father. In his autobiography, Jackson Pollock writes that he lays down large white canvases on the ground and spraying colors on the canvas with dance-like body movements, he intended to imitate the way his father was urinating on the ground. Indisputably, Jackson has chosen this way of creating the artwork to communicate with the audience of his artworks, in contemporary age, with full discretion. The place of creation and presentation of Pollock’s artworks is a dedicated place for creation and presentation of an artwork like atelier, gallery or a museum. Therefore, Jackson Pollock’s act of creating an artwork by falls exactly in scheme1 and the act of urinating of his father with gestures invented by the artist himself, certainly categorize as sheme2. However, Jackson Pollock’s “expression” act is in some ways an interpretation or adaption of his father “manifestation” action. Hence, it can be said that the influence of manifestation actions counts creation of an artwork.

In this type of expressive symbolism, people display their attitude towards the environment and the world in which they live, and actors like artists, poets, writers, etc. use their self-specific expression to represent what is real world in their opinion to the audience. As Danto puts it to words, «“where they are condemned to live.”» (Danto, 1996, p. 88)

The expression that artists use to describe the word around is often strongly critical in the purpose of encouraging fundamental changes in the world they consider inappropriate to live.

Such expressive conceptualizations are personal symbols that invite the audience to rethink about their pivotal role in the world that must change for a better world where justice, equality, peace and comfort are istributed equally. Certainly, the role of the audience (number 4 of scheme2) should not be underestimated in the context of the “expression” concept and aesthetics perception. An “expressing” action becomes “manifestation” on in the absence of audience.

Culture, nurtured the symbols of “expressing” action. Every culture can also be placed in a global context and becomes globalized, and incurs changes resulted from global technological developments. As Marshall McLuhan (1911-1980) puts it to words: «The Medium itself is the massage, [...] in reality and in application, the real massage is the medium itself. In other words, how much a medium effects on the people and on the society respectively, depends on the degree of intellectual changes it makes. As a new technology, on individuals and their lives as well.» (McLuhan, 1977, p. 13)

Nowadays, in addition to our local culture, we are influenced by a global culture. Former, we talked about an actor (artist) who creates his personal and endogenous symbols, which are at the same time influenced by artist’s culture and environment as well as the symbols of global culture.

Personal and endogenous symbols are incredibly easier to read the codes and to percept by the audience who is familiar to the culture of creator. The process, however, involves many complexities for the audience who is stranger to creator’s culture. «The set words we use in our conversations, precisely reflects all those concepts and relationships that humans believe have had the value of being grounded in human thoughts for generations. The next point is the survival of the most compatible elements and concepts with human thoughts over the time. These concepts are undoubtedly far more than those that deal with our ordinary life, and are also beyond our imagination in a pleasant afternoon when we leaned back into lean into our sofa.» (Marconi, 2015). This statement from Austin about the contribution of concepts and thoughts of an age in the process of creating words and developing language over the same age can be generalized to the process of creating personal symbols. It is also considered to answer to the question of “in what artistic content can an artist create his own personal symbols in a meaningful way?” when we talk about content, we mean all discussions about the occurrence of an action or an event that may have a historical background. We are, influenced by our past and our ancestors’ past. Therefore, when we talk about content, we also have historical socio-political, economic, cultural and artistic events in view. This historical content certainly includes artistic content as well.

Actually, globalization affected various aspects of our life, as the way we live in different societies is more alike than every time in the past. Now, the boundaries between concepts, societies, and related cultures have almost disappeared. This certainly has also affected the Contemporary art word. «When the word contemporary is used in the sense of simultaneity, works created in the present time are considered as contemporary. Considering a little tolerance in the accurate time, contemporary art refers to artworks produced in 1960s and later on. A time when coincided with the Conceptual art movement, the originality of ideas and the advent of new technologies in creation of artworks, and when the desire for a multi-identity resulted from the outset of pluralism, was manifested.» (Taghavi, et Al., 2017, p. 7)

This content can be seen obviously in the installation of Brillo soap boxes, Andy Warhol recreated the popular brand of soap boxes, Brillo, using wood and serigraphy on it. He displays the boxes in the same way that they are stacked in stores. At that time (1964), the first reaction of non-professional and professional audience to the work was shock and confusion. Why does an artist like Warhol exhibit this form of personal symbolizing? Is there any artistic creativity in the installation of soap boxes to introduce it as an artwork? The work aroused controversies in the world of Contemporary art, and proponents and opponents who debated different aesthetic and philosophical art theories, lined up against each other.

The installation of Brillo soap boxes immediately drew the audience’s attention to a famous commercial product that if one had not consumed it, he would have seen it in commercials or in stores. An object that originated from a familiar commercial content to the audience, and was displayed in the content of art that no one expected to see it with Warhol’s signature. Like the confusion, which Duchamp’s work (Fontaine), brought to the art world in 1917, Warhol’s soap boxes prompted the contemporary audience to ponder on artist’s personal symbols applied in the re-displayed object and thereby it deserved to be displayed in an artistic place. «Emotions prompted by representations.¹»

Warhol brought personal symbolism that belonged to his age, to the forefront. Every artwork reflects the time in which it is produced and displayed. An age commenced after World War II and marked by rapid and dramatic technological advances, a revolution in massive production and consumption of goods, and a culture called Consumer culture that previously was not introduced to the middle class of American and European society. That time, goods were not produced only to satisfy the human needs, but a wide range of tempting, colorful goods were promoted to inject a sense of need to the consumer society and to dictate must have items even if they were not useful. The new trend did not exist in Warhol’s contemporary society before. Therefore, it seems that the artist tried to encourage the potential of any human work to turn into an artwork through personal symbols displayed in reconstruction of a commercial product using more durable materials than cardboard boxes. Warhol’s personal symbolism derived from the consumer culture of his contemporary society. He often intended to make a great fuss and tumult by expressing such a controversial personal symbolism in the content of his artwork, in order to draw audience’s attention and to arouse sensitivity of the society on pressing issues. The content that has been at the center arguments for decades and is still alive.

In contemporary time, a work known alive and active if the content of the work survives over the time, holds the ability of communicating with the public, touches the feelings and arouse the thoughts of the audience in different historical periods, otherwise, the time of the work has been over.

Conclusion

According to “Applied Ontology” theory and Analytic philosophy, an artwork should be defined as it is far from any aesthetic theories and approaches. Then begin to analyze the artwork from parts to whole and from the whole to the parts simultaneously, and the work itself (form, political content, community, culture, technique, place of artistic presentation, etc.)

When we look at artworks created throughout the world, during the art history, we can see that they have always had a common element. They have some symbolic codes in common being recognized based on different cultures to which they belong.

Therefore, these symbolic conventions are possibly seem familiar to people of the same culture, and seem strange to other people from different cultures. The difference between a professional and a non-professional audience should also be noted. When an artist meet a professional audience, the often exchange their views, without necessarily reaching an agreement or similar point of view. What is important here is the dialogue and the exchange of thoughts between them. The authors do not recognize therefore, the term “unfair criticism” as appropriate one; and they much more prefer the term “incorrect criticism”.

Proof of Hypothesis: It should be noted that this paper propose an eclectic theory of “Applied Ontology” in art and the Analytical philosophy of art as well. The paper, try to answer theoretical questions about the process of creating an artwork, and the mutual role of the artist and the audience in the process as well as the way an artwork is received in the world of Contemporary art.

Using this eclectic theory, we reject the ontological approach to Art, focusing only on the beauty of artwork. We also do not consider the approach citable in the process of creating an artwork. The results showed that in the contemporary art world, an object would be recognized as an artwork, if it is the subject of arguments among art experts or is exhibited in some places dedicated for displaying or sale of artworks there.

Today, our epoch is replete with art criticism. The art world consists of three main parts including creation, criticizing, and educating art. According to the “Applied Ontology” theory, today, art criticism is all arguments about the art theories, being developed by contemporary philosophers and experts. However, a theory that comprehensively responds to all contemporary artistic creations has not proposed yet.

Theories proposed based on “Applied Ontology” philosophy as well as Analytic philosophy, focusing on the beauty to define art is doomed to be rejected. The two aforementioned theories are far from all those basic art theories, which have beauty as basic approach. This way, today, it is inevitable that every human work is considered as artwork.

References

Austin, J. L. & Marconi, D. (2015). La philosophie du langepoch au XXe siècle. Obtained from: https://tinyurl.com/427rwc95

Berthet, D. (2009). Sartre, les arts plastiques et l'engepochment. In Changer L'art Transformer la Société: Art et Politique 2. Paris: L'Harmattan.

Couturier, E. (2004). L'art contemporain mode d'emploi. Turin: Filipacchi.

Danto, A. & Hary-Schaeffer, C. (1996). Après la fin de l'art. París: Seuil.

Danto, A. (2012). Le monde de l'art. Cahiers Philosophiques. 131, 103-128.

Lucie-Smith, E. (2005). Concepts and Approaches in the Last Artistic Movements of the Twentieth Century: Globalization and Modern Art. Tehran: Nazar Publishing House.

Matisse, H. (1972). Écrits et propos sur l'art. París: Hermann.

McLuhan, M. (1977). Pour comprendre les médias: le prolongement techniques de l'homme, Paris: Seuil.

Picasso, P. (2017). Des citations d'artistes ou de penseurs sur l'art. Obtained from: https://tinyurl.com/whbx476f

Pouvet, R. (2003). l'œuvre d'art à l'âge de sa mondialisation: un essai d'ontologie de l'art de masse. Bélgica: La lettre volée.

Rancière, J. (2004). Malaise dans l'esthétique. Paris: Galilée.

Sartre, J. P. (1948). La Recherche de l'absolu. Paris: Gallimard.

Taranom Taghavi, T., Kafshchian Moghaddam, A., & Pahlevan Nodeh, M. (2019). A Perception of Contemporary art. Fine Arts - Visual Arts, 2(24).

Théval, G. (2017). L'acte interprétatif et les œuvres littéraires, théâtrales, cinématographiques, etc. Obtained from: https://tinyurl.com/5zuwj6hx

Wolheim, R. (1987). Painting as an art. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Zabolinezhad, H. (2008). Aesthetics and Modern Art. The Month book of Art, 135.

Zabolinezhah, H. (2018). À la recherche de la figure de l'artiste contemporain, dans le cadre de la mondialisation. Le cas particulier des artistes iraniens. PhD dissertation., Collège doctoral européen de l'Université de Strasbourg.

Notas