What does Arthur Danto mean by his title "After the End of Art"? He starts off his stimulating, if rather repetitive book, by discussing the German art historian Hans Belting's book The Image Before the End of Art. That book discusses the history of devotional images and icons before 1400 AD, and how they were produced primarily as icons, and not as art per se. It was only with the beginning of the renaissance that images became part of what could be described as an aesthetic ideology. In the opinion of Vasari and others art, in particular painting, can be seen as a progressive narrative which progresses towards mimesis, or imitation. After the invention of the photograph, accurate imitation became less of a value, and the progressive virtue of this narrative became one of "shape, surface, pigment, and the like as defining painting in its purity." The climax of this ideology came in the great, flawed, critic Clement Greenberg's championing of the abstract expressionism of Jackson Pollock. But as abstract expressionism exhausted itself in the early sixties, one could no longer define art as a progressive narrative. To use Danto's example, one could no longer produce a theory of art which would disqualify Andy Warhol's Brillo Box as a work of art. Therefore, everything could be a work of art. "Art" or the old "artistic ideology" was dead. There is such a thing as art, says Danto, and there is an inherent essence in it, but it is vastly wider than the progressive development ideology that had previously existed.

At the same time, says Danto, one must take a historicist approach. Very simply, "Manyof the artworks (cave paintings, fetishes, altar pieces) were made in times and places when people had no concept of art to speak of, since they interpreted art in terms of their other beliefs." Danto goes on to discuss how much art of the present day would not have been considered art in the past. He provides some interesting aspects of this historical anomaly. For example there is the 19th century artist Anselm Feuerbach who painted a grand, academically precise picture, the sort that would soon by overtaken by impressionism, of a scene from Plato's Symposium. But he made a mistake in his meticulously accurate historical reconstruction. He includes a painting in the background which portrays Xenophon's variation on the same events. The problem is that the painting is not in the style of a fifth century BC Greek painting. Danto goes on to discuss the inevitable failure of the Vermeer forger Hans Van Meegeren, how Russell Connor combined Picasso's Les demoiselles d'Avignon and Ruben's Rape of the Daughters of Leucippus, and finally ends up with "America's Most Wanted" the painting the Russian artists Komar and Melamid painted after conducting an elaborate opinion poll.

One should be aware of the many criticisms that have been made of this thesis. For example, there is the ironyof having a narrative which amounts to the end of narrative. And as Terry Eagleton sourly puts it "if art these days is a realm without rules, it is so, among other reasons, because there is not really that much at stake. If art mattered socially and politically, rather than just economically, it is unlikely that we would be quite so nonchalant about what qualified for the title." One should also read Perry Anderson's The Origins of Postmodernity for another perspective on the postmodernist moment. Still, this is an important book, and one should pay particular attention to Danto's chapter on the nature of monochrome art. There is also a nuanced chapter on museums and the conflict between them as purveyors of the beautiful and the artistic and the possibilities of anti-museum based community art. There are also discussions of Kant, Heidegger and particularly Hegel; amusingly enough, the last thing in the book is a caricature of Danto showing a Brillo Box to a disconcerted Hegel.

Danto is one of the most influential but at the same time misconceived philosophers of art today. People have widely misunderstood two of his major thesis. Danto's notion of the "Artworld" has been mixed up with George Dickie's institutional theory of art and the end of art has been taken to mean the death of art. Both of these misconceptions are quite severe. In this book Danto tries to clarify his thoughts and express what he doesn't mean by these notions. For him the end of art means that a certain historical development has come to an end and that pluralism reigns in the artworld. There are no a priori conditions for being an artwork and basically any item in the world can also be an artwork. Danto doesn't see the end of art as a bad thing but he even seems to think that a new golden age of art can begin. But there are also threats if artists aren't ingenious enough. The end of art has also many consequences. Art criticism becomes much harder because all basic guidelines of appreciation and evaluation have disappeared. Every artwork has to be taken as an individual. The philosophical consequence is that the philosophy of art has to change. If anything can be an artwork then no definition of art can be founded on perceptual properties. Danto sees the history of aesthetics as relevantly barren, because philosophers like Kant have considered beauty to be an essential feature of art.

Danto also discusses his notion of the "artworld". In this book he says that he means by this concept that when an object is transfigured into the artworld, this object is set in to a relation with every other artwork in the world and therefore it can posses meanings that mere real things lack. He also takes up an old and neglected idea of the style matrix, which he introduced already in his classic article "The Artworld" that appeared in 1964. I truly find Danto's ideas of the artworld extremely interesting and it is shame that people have misunderstood him so badly. The last article in the book "Modalities of History" is one of the best Danto has ever written and it shows how important the history of art is for him. In the article he tries to show with the help of some examples what he means by the phrase that he inherited from Wöllflin "not everything is possible at every time."

Like always Danto's writing style is very fluent and eloquent. His knowledge on the history of art is just astounding. Many of Danto's books that have appeared after The Transfiguration of the Commonplace haven't been that important for his general theory but this book is absolutely vital if you want to understand his philosophy of art.

In this valuable book, Danto is not speaking of the death of art as one might speak of the death of God. When he speaks of 'the end of art', he is speaking about the end of art history as we know it and have thought of it; the way of viewing art history that we were taught in 'The History of Western Art 101'.

"To say that history is over is to say that there is no longer a pale of history for works of art to fall outside of. Everything is possible. Anything can be art. And, because the present situation is essentially unstructured, one can no longer fit a master narrative to it....It inaugurates the greatest era of freedom art has ever known. (p.112)"

The history of art up to this point has been a history of exclusion, legitimizing and highlighting only certain works which fall within the pale of this narrative. Danto's point is that there is no longer a pale of history.

But it is possible, I believe, to see something even larger in Danto's analysis, something that would be interesting to pursue by someone with a good grasp of history and culture. One might see further into his thesis and find that the history of art has been one of an evolution of individuation. Starting from the Egyptians, where art was an umbrella covering the entire culture, a culture in which the individual was of little value, to our present age in which art has moved to the opposite extreme, no longer controled by anything or anybody (except perhaps the art industry itself), heralding a new stage ( about 1964 by Danto's reakoning) in the idividuation of the planet.

If, as Teilhard de Chardin says, the impulse of evolution is toward greater consciousness and greater complexity, then what we are seeing at the present time is not something unstructured (as Danto posits), but rather, something of far greater structure, something much more complex than we have witnessed before. A stucture and complexity perhaps presently beyond our comprehension. (Of course, the conservative view of this will be that we are witnessing an encroaching chaos that will destroy civilization as we know it.)

From this new perspective, the present radical pluralism would be, rather than an unstructuring, a further step toward something of a far deeper order, an order we have not seen before, one which reflects an important moment in the individuation of humanity on this planet. Taking Danto's basic thesis, one might write a new history of art from the point of view of the evolution of individuation in art. But then this would be another master narrative and would undermine Danto's thesis. Or would it? For this is not a master narrative of art but of evolution itself as evidenced in art.

And who better to herald this advance than the artists!

I've been studying philosophy for five years now and I found it very useful to read book, because Danto truly brings the reader back to basic questions that I had already forgotten. I think in a way he deals with the biggest question in philosophy namely "What is philosophy". The first part of the book contains a very interesting discussion on nature of philosophical problems and how they differ from scientific ones. After this Danto considers some of the basic concepts of philosophy such as "understanding" "knowledge" and "world". Many might say that Danto's conception is quite old fashioned

If you are interested in Danto's philosophy of art you should read this book, because his conception of philosophy has clearly influenced it. "The problem of indiscernibles", which is the starting point of his philosophy of art, is based on Danto's conception of the nature of philosophical problems. Reading this book will deepen your understanding of his aesthetics.

Danto is a magnificent writer and he is so clear sometimes I had to wonder whether there was anything deep in this book. I think it's not hard to sound deep if you write like some French philosophers, but it is a true sign of a great philosopher that he can express difficult ideas clearly. And Danto manages to fulfil this criterion perfectly.

Danto is one of the most influential but at the same time misconceived philosophers of art today. People have widely misunderstood two of his major thesis. Danto's notion of the "Artworld" has been mixed up with George Dickie's institutional theory of art and the end of art has been taken to mean the death of art. Both of these misconceptions are quite severe. In this book Danto tries to clarify his thoughts and express what he doesn't mean by these notions. For him the end of art means that a certain historical development has come to an end and that pluralism reigns in the artworld. There are no a priori conditions for being an artwork and basically any item in the world can also be an artwork. Danto doesn't see the end of art as a bad thing but he even seems to think that a new golden age of art can begin. But there are also threats if artists aren't ingenious enough. The end of art has also many consequences. Art criticism becomes much harder because all basic guidelines of appreciation and evaluation have disappeared. Every artwork has to be taken as an individual. The philosophical consequence is that the philosophy of art has to change. If anything can be an artwork then no definition of art can be founded on perceptual properties. Danto sees the history of aesthetics as relevantly barren, because philosophers like Kant have considered beauty to be an essential feature of art.

Danto also discusses his notion of the "artworld". In this book he says that he means by this concept that when an object is transfigured into the artworld, this object is set in to a relation with every other artwork in the world and therefore it can posses meanings that mere real things lack. He also takes up an old and neglected idea of the style matrix, which he introduced already in his classic article "The Artworld" that appeared in 1964. I truly find Danto's ideas of the artworld extremely interesting and it is shame that people have misunderstood him so badly. The last article in the book "Modalities of History" is one of the best Danto has ever written and it shows how important the history of art is for him. In the article he tries to show with the help of some examples what he means by the phrase that he inherited from Wöllflin "not everything is possible at every time."

Like always Danto's writing style is very fluent and eloquent. His knowledge on the history of art is just astounding. Many of Danto's books that have appeared after The Transfiguration of the Commonplace haven't been that important for his general theory but this book is absolutely vital if you want to understand his philosophy of art.

Dr. Danto has provided a nicely balanced, well-written overview of the fundamental concepts of Philosophy. This volume offers rich historical context by comparing and contrasting familiar views of both the ancients and contemporary thinkers while incorporating Danto's own perspective. This book is enjoyable to read and accessible to most anyone.

This collection of essays contains all of Danto's now out-of-print Analytical Philosophy of History, plus a handful of other pieces. If you are interested in the methods and objectives of historical study, or in the kind of knowledge history may produce, you should read this book.

There are some wild readings of Nietzsche out there (nothing wrong with that), but in this book Danto works out of the British/American more conservative school of philosophy and tries to discover if there is a logical system to Nietzsche's works. Danto is one of the most readable philosophers out there, and is sensitive to the problems of systemizing Nietzsche. Overall a nice antidote to give to overzealous intellectuals who read a little Nietzsche and then feel qualified to start calling themselves one of the ubermensch.

Arthur Danto raises many interesting points to help understand art today. In many cases his ideas are very insightful. It made me wonder about what came first, Danto's ideas, or the artist's ideas as revealed in their work?