The End of Art: A Philosophical Defense
Article first published online: 17 DEC 2002
DOI: 10.1111/0018-2656.721998072
1998 by Wesleyan University
Additional Information
How to Cite
Danto, A. C. (1998), The End of Art: A Philosophical Defense. History and Theory, 37: 127–143. doi: 10.1111/0018-2656.721998072
Publication History
- Issue published online: 17 DEC 2002
- Article first published online: 17 DEC 2002
- Abstract
- Cited By
This essay constructs philosophical defenses against criticisms of my theory of the end of art. These have to do with the definition of art; the concept of artistic quality; the role of aesthetics; the relationship between philosophy and art; how to answer the question “But is it art?”; the difference between the end of art and “the death of painting”; historical imagination and the future; the method of using indiscernible counterparts, like Warhol's Brillo Box and the Brillo cartons it resembles; the logic of imitation—and the differences between Hegel's views on the end of art and mine. These defenses amplify and fortify the thesis of the end of art as set forth in my After the End of Art: Contemporary Art and the Pale of History (1997).

1468-2303/asset/HITH_centre.gif?v=1&s=1dbd4b55667923b89d14e7cf1c0647722e87b515)
1468-2303/asset/HITH_right.gif?v=1&s=790f8346dd02269cc464f390302425d8aa4329ea)
1468-2303/asset/cover.gif?v=1&s=139703528552333fa5405dbdd41506d13b6aa23c)