Abstract
In 1984 American philosopher Arthur C. Danto proclaimed that art came to the end.
This assertion is known as the end-of-art thesis Although it has been more than thirty years since the original paper "The End of Art" was published, philosophers have still be interested in analysis of the thesis and seek to provide new ways of its interpretation. However, the question of the origin of the thesis seems to be overshadowed by different topics.
Danto's thesis has still been identified with Hegel's idea that "art, considered in its highest vocation, is and remains for us a thing of the past". Contrary to this interpretation, I shall argue that Danto's claim that art came to the end was not inspired solely by Hegel but that the form of the thesis results from his reading of Thomas Kuhn, Alexandre Kojève and Josiah Royce.
With regard to Hegel, this article shall demonstrate that Danto did not find the inspiration in Hegel's Aesthetics but in his Phenomenology of Spirit. Moreover, as I shall show, Danto's understanding of Hegel's philosophy was shaped by Hegel's interpreters rather than by a systematic research in idealist philosophy.
In addition, a significant role played Danto's own ideas on philosophy of history, especially his conception of narrative. In consequence, I believe that Danto's end-of-art thesis makes a more original contribution to philosophy of art than it is usually supposed.