In 1997, art critic and philosopher Arthur Danto declared the ‘end of art’ upon seeing Andy Warhol’s Brillo Boxes. This inflammatory claim highlighted the concerns of modernism and the blurring between art and non-art. What Warhol demonstrated to Danto was a complete satisfaction between the two definitions. In fact, Warhol’s art was so inwardly directed and subjective that its definition had become philosophical.
Andy Warhol’s art thrived within the Artworld, as he highlighted motifs of high consumerism and mundane repetition in objects. He demonstrated ideas through transforming an ordinary, mass produced and neglected can into art. The decision to call Warhol’s product art was the end of art, because he believed that the Artworld determined the value of the product, through members knowledgeable on art’s historical context. With the multiple interpretations and emotions conveyed by the dichotomy of art and non-art, the significance and continuation of art and the job of the Artworld was halted. However, the Artworld is spontaneously distorted and recreated, and cannot be dissipated by the threat of multiple meanings. What Warhol demonstrates is not the limitations of value determined by the Artworld. Instead, he ushers in a new era of pluralism—of multiple meanings and open ended questions still formulating. The Artworld becomes a larger platform of creation and reception, and is fundamental to the recognition and preservation of the art piece.