Compare this to your after screenshot:

Compare this to your after screenshot:

Apart from small distinctions like the web page quantity in the 1st image as well as the Address “poorlydrawnlines.com” when you look at the 2nd, those two comics look basically the exact same, right? Incorrect. The 2nd comic has different measurements (dependent on my web browser settings – currently I’ve blown it as much as 24 ? 24 cm), its colour colors are very different (dependent on my screen settings), light is mirrored differently off its area, it also glows by itself… to not mention the various feel and odor. Yet, many people will say both are exactly the same comic, “Stereotype” by Reza Farazmand.

Would Danto concur? Does he even think about two copies of the numerous to function as the same thing of beauty, two copies of a novel for example? He does, e.g. On p. 33:

I am able to, as an example, burn off a duplicate for the guide by which a poem is printed, however it is not even close to clear that in that way we have actually burned right off the poem, though it exists elsewhere, say in another copy, the poem cannot merely be identical with that copy since it seems plain that though the page was destroyed, the poem was not; and. When it comes to exact same explanation, it can not be identified aided by the pages simply burned. … Often sufficient poets and philosophers have actually looked at artworks as hence just tenuously linked to their embodiments.

Doesn’t this contradict the emphasis Danto puts on “the means this content is presented” (see above)? Or doesn’t he count himself among the list of “poets and philosophers” who dismiss the form that is physical of artwork? On p. 93-94 it seems like he does:

Cohen has expected that Duchamp’s work is maybe perhaps not the urinal after all nevertheless the gesture of exhibiting it; plus the motion, if that certainly may be the work, does not have any surfaces that are gleaming speak of …. Read more