2

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?

  • Related The Definition of Art as well as Arthur Danto : "Danto is not claiming that no-one is making art anymore; nor is he claiming that no good art is being made any more. But he thinks that a certain history of western art has come to an end, in about the way that Hegel suggested it would. The "end of art" refers to the beginning of our modern era of art in which art no longer adheres to the constraints of imitation theory but serves a new purpose." – Mauro ALLEGRANZA May 7 '18 at 12:43

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.