Meaning of “art historical context”

Question

I am writing a critical report where I'm comparing different definitions of art. I came across this one:

Danto's definition has been glossed as follows: something is a work of art if and only if it has a subject (ii) about which it projects some attitude or point of view (has a style) (iii) by means of rhetorical ellipsis (usually metaphorical) which ellipsis engages audience participation in filling in what is missing, and (iv) where the work in question and the interpretations thereof require an art historical context.

In the final condition (iv), what do they mean by "art historical context"?

Answer 1

If something must be understood or analyzed "in historical context," it means the historical circumstances in which it was produced very much affected the work - its themes, its techniques, its message, etc. Without an understanding of the era, a full understanding of the piece will be impossible.

Adding the word "art" to the phrase simply means that the work must be analyzed within the frame of art history, with an eye to contemporary developments and trends in the art world.

Some schools of criticism argue that an artistic product (in the linked context, a work of literature) should be analyzed outside of time, but this has, blessedly, fallen out of favor in recent years.