The Genealogical Presuppositions of Danto's End of Art Thesis and Their Ancient Greek Roots
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.63313/LLCS.9193Keywords:
End of art, Arthur C. Danto, technē, mousikē, genealogy, non-Western aestheticsAbstract
Arthur C. Danto's “end of art” thesis, framed within Hegelian philosophy of history, narrates the history of art as a teleological process in which art, through self-reflection, ultimately achieves philosophical self-consciousness. This article reveals a long-neglected genealogical presupposition behind this narrative: what Danto inherits is merely one of the two ancient Greek classificatory domains of “art”—the tradition of technē (craft), centered on rational, rule-governed making. Running parallel to this in the Greek intellectual world was an equally significant domain: mousikē (the arts of the Muses), whose core mechanism was enthousiasmos (divine inspiration), encompassing the performative practices of poetry, music, and dance. Although these two domains were never unified under a single concept in Greek antiquity, both are ancestors of what we today call art. Danto's “embodied meaning”—meaning prior to materiality, cognition prior to sensibility—is precisely the philosophical culmination of the technē lineage alone. By tracing the genealogical roots of this classificatory fissure, this paper argues that three dimensions carried by mousikē—performativity, inspiration, and syncretic unity—are systematically excluded from Danto's framework, and it corroborates this diagnosis through independent practices drawn from non-Western aesthetic traditions. The conclusion suggests that the “end” Danto proclaims describes not the end of art as such, but the exhaustion of a particular narrative mode internal to the technē lineage. The other half of art never entered the question-framing of this lineage at all.
References
[1] Arthur C. Danto, “The End of Art,” in The Death of Art, ed. Berel Lang (New York: Haven Publications, 1984), 5–35.
[2] Arthur C. Danto, After the End of Art: Contemporary Art and the Pale of History (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997), 4.
[3] The foundational studies are Paul Oskar Kristeller, “The Modern System of the Arts: A Study in the History of Aesthetics,” Journal of the History of Ideas 12, no. 4 (1951): 496–527; and Władysław Tatarkiewicz, A History of Six Ideas: An Essay in Aesthetics, trans. Christopher Kasparek (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1980), esp. chap. 1.
[4] Tatarkiewicz, A History of Six Ideas, 18–21.
[5] Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, 1140a6–10. Unless otherwise noted, all quotations from Aristotle follow The Complete Works of Aristotle: The Revised Oxford Translation, ed. Jonathan Barnes (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984).
[6] Tatarkiewicz, A History of Six Ideas, 20–22. On Plato's Philebus classification, see also Stephen Halliwell, The Aesthetics of Mimesis: Ancient Texts and Modern Problems (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002), 72–78.
[7] On the Ion, see Halliwell, The Aesthetics of Mimesis, 118–124. For the Greek text with commentary, see Plato, Ion, ed. Albert Rijksbaron (Leiden: Brill, 2007).
[8] Plato, Phaedrus, 245a.
[9] Plato, Laws, 654a.
[10] Kristeller, “The Modern System of the Arts,” 497–520.
[11] Plato, Republic, 597b–598c.
[12] Arthur C. Danto, The Transfiguration of the Commonplace (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1981), 147–151.
[13] Danto, After the End of Art, 3–5.
[14] Gorgias, Encomium of Helen, DK 82 B11, §8–14. The standard English translation is in The Older Sophists, ed. Rosamond Kent Sprague, trans. George Kennedy (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1972), 50–54.
[15] Plato, Charmides, 156e–157a.
[16] Friedrich Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols, §24, in The Portable Nietzsche, trans. Walter Kaufmann (New York: Viking, 1954), 529. The original reads: “daß die Kunst das große Stimulans zum Leben ist.”
[17] For a phenomenological description of creative emergence that brackets supernatural appeals, see Mikel Dufrenne, The Phenomenology of Aesthetic Experience, trans. Edward S. Casey et al. (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1973), 26–34.
[18] Xie He, Guhua Pinlu [Classification of Painters], in Susan Bush and Hsio-yen Shih, Early Chinese Texts on Painting (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1985), 40–44.
[19] Shitao [Daoji], Kugua Heshang Huayulu [Enlightening Remarks on Painting], annotated by Yu Jianhua (Beijing: People’s Fine Arts Publishing House, 2007), 1. [in Chinese] For a partial English translation, see Richard Strassberg, Enlightening Remarks on Painting by Shih-t’ao (Pacifica, CA: Pacific Asia Museum, 1989).
[20] Leonard Koren, Wabi-Sabi for Artists, Designers, Poets & Philosophers (Point Reyes, CA: Imperfect Publishing, 1994), 21–29.
[21] Günter Nitschke, “MA: The Japanese Sense of Place,” Architectural Design 36, no. 3 (1966): 116–156, at 120–125.
[22] Bharata, Nāṭyaśāstra, chap. 6, trans. Manomohan Ghosh, The Nāṭyaśāstra: A Treatise on Ancient Indian Dramaturgy and Histrionics (Calcutta: Asiatic Society, 1951).
[23] Eberhard Fischer and Hans Himmelheber, The Arts of the Dan in West Africa (Zurich: Museum Rietberg, 1984), 78–92.
[24] Arthur C. Danto, “The Artworld,” The Journal of Philosophy 61, no. 19 (1964): 571–584, at 581–582.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 by author(s) and Erytis Publishing Limited

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.







