What Distinguishes an Artwork?

Through the previous week, we have started to discuss the philosophical works of Arthur Danto. More or less as Wartenberg stated "Abstract expressionism........minimalism - these and other schools produced works that seemed to violate the boundary between art and non art....And if anything could be art, was art still itself a meaningful concept?" the point that I am trying to make out of this statement is that central to Danto's argument, what distinguishes an artwork such as Warhol's Brillo Box from the real thing? So the question that I am asking is that what distinguishes an artwork? Since anything could be art, ranging from a toilet bowl to an elementary school chair, why is the Brillo Box (that contains soap pads) not an artwork? Danto states that the problem is that if we cant see any perceptible differences between an artwork and the real thing, why isn't the box on the supermarket shelf also artwork? A response to this question is that whoever or what proved that the box is not an artwork? As I stated before anything is art and art does not have to be tangible or physical. There is the art of basketball, the art of sleeping, the art of drawing , and so on. Anything is art until someone/something proves that it is not. So I'm guessing that is it safe to say that the Brillo Box is an artwork because it does contain characteristics that many pieces of art possess during our era, the 21st century. For example that Brillo Box is colorful, creative, contains shapes, and a catchy logo. While Danto would probably disagree with me in this situation he would further state that Warhol's Brillo Box is a work of art but only the picture, not the actual box. In this instance he states his case very precisely and many people would not recognize that the physical "box" is not a work of art. It makes complete sense in most situations but in some situations it does not. Does Danto mean that on a specific painting such as the Mona Lisa is a work of art, but the canvas and frame are not part of the artwork. Or even better with a building, is the actual architecture considered art but not the steel,concrete,and brick which is holding the building together in place? His theory is confusing but makes most sense in certain situations. However Danto states in his second theory that the artworld is comprised of an atmosphere of artistic theory, a knowledge of the history of art. In response, Wartenberg states that the statement is imprecise but it can be unpacked as followed: to understand a work of art, one has to have knowledge of both the history and theory of art. This is probably some of the best words that have came out of Wartenberg's mouth because he is close to one hundred correct about this statement. The reason why is that how can you appreciate a Van Gogh, Picasso, Monet, or a Renoir without knowing the background of the specific artist or the background (history) of the painting. In most situations you cannot appreciate artwork you don't know anything about. You can say the same about how can anyone appreciate music if you do not have a history of knowing the origins of music, the famous classical composers,and even a brief history of some of the major instruments? You just cannot in these situations that can be so complex and full of vital information. However in some simpler situations such as food and television shows you can appreciate them with no or very minimal knowledge. They are most likely events that an individual could instantly find an appreciation though taste and pleasure. To conclude that without a prior understanding of art history and theory of the artworld, a viewer cannot see an object a work of art.

Q: If an individual does not have knowledge of art, can he/she appreciate art? Why or why not?