| dc.description.abstract | When art, through internal and external processes, reached a state of autonomy as a practice with its own knowledge and practices, a set of problems concerning its meaning and/or justification emerged. The artworld became a specialized institution dependent on the market and/or the government, which is structured autotelically, except when it comes to entertainment. Thus, there only remains a narrow margin for anything that questions art or for a large number of receivers who are not challenged by what is produced as culture, which is either alien or indifferent to them. More and more, a work of art is presented as a communication in a Conference, something done by one specialist for other specialists. On the other hand, philosophy and art theory have considered this practice as foreign to connoisseurs, as something that often cannot even be considered art while sharing techniques and references similar to those made possible the autonomy of which we speak. Heteronomous art is, from a radical point of view, an art that would not know that is such a thing in any way; the knowledge and practices surrounding it were different and because of that was that heteronomous art itself was made possible. Our thesis hold that the concept art includes autonomy even if it is in a minimal degree always related with heteronomy, and that this relation allows us to understand the concept art as a practice with its own history, given its relationship with the techniques and the reception. Understand some of the historical and philosophical landmarks of this relationship, as its articulation on what we call, nowadays, the Hegelian theory of the end of the art, its a necessary previous step to understand the "institutional autonomy", essential for contemporaneity and the post-historical or phenomenon. | |
