Danto inicia su filosofía de la historia del arte con un núcleo problemático que inaugura el modernismo: una obra de arte llega a ser indiscernible de una mera cosa, en la medida en que es el resultado lógico de la narrativa de un cierto periodo. Hablar sobre el fin del arte es hablar de las razones que sustentan esa narración y de la posibilidad de su culminación. Se propone una crítica, a partir de la relación entre esencialismo, historicismo y pluralismo, (...) para examinar su controversial tesis sobre la clausura histórica del arte por agotamiento de su impulso cognitivo. (shrink)

The demise of grand narratives of art, and the emergence of “post-historical art,” have produced a chasm between the tradition of philosophical aesthetics and the production and reception of contemporary art, a divide that has deprived philosophy of the fundamental role it had played, arguably, until the end of the Modern period. The goal of this paper, which focuses primarily on art after 2000, is to investigate possible venues and directions in the current production and reception of art that might (...) lead to a reconciliation of these two poles and to the advancement of new philosophical strategies for the analysis of art. Specifically, I will concentrate on three aspects of the experience of art today: first, the emphasis, in the production and reception of artworks, on enactive accounts of artistic experience; secondly, the importance given to the ethical content of artworks and to their ability to trigger ethical, social, and political reflection; and, lastly, the growing role of the art market and its structures in the overall appreciation of the arts. (shrink)

ABSTRACTIn this paper, I consider Adorno's claim that art is at, or is coming to, an ‘end’. I consider Adorno's account in relation to the work of Arthur Danto and G. W. F. Hegel. I employ Danto's account, together with two distinct interpretive glosses of Hegel's account, as heuristic devices in order to clarify both Adorno's own arguments, and the context within which they are being advanced. I argue that while Danto and Hegel see art as coming to an end (...) autonomously, owing to art's successful realization of its governing principle, Adorno by contrast sees art as coming to an end heteronomously. Art's narrative is forcibly broken off, rather than completed. Adorno's account, indebted to Hegel, of art's commitment both to autonomy and the realization of ‘spiritual needs’ is explored in order to clarify how, on Adorno's view, this has happened to art; and why, precisely, he believes art is coming to an end. (shrink)

I propose that artworks represent a specific and homogeneous ontological kind, grounded in a common ontological core. I call this common core ‘non-universalizable embodied meaning’, and I argue that this common core explains how artworks unfold their ontological identity at the physical, intentional, and social levels on the basis of an original and irreducible mode of material embodiment and cultural emergence; this common core functions as the constitutive rule of art and institutes an axiological normativity, that is, normativity based on (...) aesthetic value; it has a central role both in the theoretical definition of art and in the identification, recognition, and fruition of the individual artworks; it enables artistic creativity, historical transformations of art, and the current, multifaceted state of art. (shrink)