History and Theory 37 (4):127–143 (1998)

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)
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1111/0018-2656.721998072
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 58,467
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Aesthetic Opacity.Emanuele Arielli - 2017 - Proceedings of the European Society for Aesthetics.
After Contemporary Art: Actualization and Anachrony.Karlholm Dan - 2016 - Nordic Journal of Aesthetics 25 (51).

View all 8 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles


Added to PP index

Total views
126 ( #79,103 of 2,421,227 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
3 ( #249,279 of 2,421,227 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes