An ex friend claimed that if anything can be an art then nothing is, and cited the following passage as a proof:
When art internalizes its own history, when it becomes self-conscious of its history as it has come to be in our time, so that its consciousness of its history forms part of its nature, it is perhaps unavoidable that it should turn into philosophy at last. And when it does so, well, in an important sense, art comes to an end.
'The Disenfranchisement of Art' (1984)
Does that follow, because to me it looks a little like a confusion of modality?