Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Wesleyan University and Blackwell Publishing are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to History and Theory.
http://www.jstor.org
THE END OF ART?
NOELCARROLL
ABSTRACT
1. ArthurDanto, "The End of Art,"in The Philosophical Disenfranchisementof Art (New York,
1986), 81-115.
2. ArthurDanto,After the End ofArt: ContemporaryArt and the Pale of History (Princeton,1997).
18 NOtL CARROLL
Here it is importantto begin by clarifying what Danto does not mean by the
end of art. Frequently,when people hear Danto's conjecture,their first response
is to say that it is obviously wrong-for, as anyone can see, there are still lots of
artists making artworks.In fact, there are probablymore artists working today
thanin any otherperiod in history.There are certainlymore art schools, artfairs,
galleries, museums, shows, artists,and artworksthanever before. How could art
history be over when art is being produced at such a dizzying rate? But this
objectionrests on a misunderstanding.
For when Danto speaks of the end of art, that is an abbreviationfor the end of
the developmentalhistory of art. Historical accounts may be divided into two
sorts: narrativesand chronicles. A chronicle of events is a list of time-ordered
happenings.First x happens,then y happens,then zAand so on. But in a narra-
tive, the events are connectedby more thantemporalsuccession: thereis a begin-
ning that gives rise to complicationsthatconvergeon closure. Events compose a
story;they head towarda climax. When Danto says thatthe history of artis over,
he means a certain development-a certain narrativedevelopment-is finished.
He does not mean that the chronicle of art history is done. Artworkswill still be
createdad seriatim.What is over is a particularprocess of evolution.
Events follow each other helter-skelterin time. However,on occasion, events
coalesce in large-scaledevelopmentsor movements,In humanaffairs,this often
occurs when people embarkupon a project that has a determinategoal or end.
Human flight, for example. The history of flight can be told as a narrative.
Successive attempts,theories, and inventionscan be configuredas an evolution-
ary process culminatingin Kitty Hawk.
Similarly,large swathsof arthistorycan be told as a linear,developmentalnar-
rative. Beginning with the Greeks, artists embraced a project: verisimilitude.
That is, they aspired to render the appearanceof things with such surpassing
accuracythat any normalviewer could recognize what pictureswere picturesof
simply by looking. Artists aspired to pictorial realism-to making images that
bore greaterand greaterlikenesses to whateverthey were images of. This project
underwrotethe production of artworksfor centuries. It enabled writers from
Vasarito Gombrichto write narrativesof arthistory-developmental stories trac-
ing impressive and more impressivefeats of realism (closer and closer approxi-
mations to the look of things).
Narrativeslike this have a definite structure.They posit a goal; events are
included in the story inasmuch as they contributeto the realizationof the goal.
Moreover,insofar as the goal is well-defined, it is conceivable that it could be
achieved.And if and when such a goal is achieved, the story-as a progressive,
developmentalnarrative-is over. Furthermore,Danto contends, this happened
to arthistorywhen, in the nineteenthcentury,photographyand cinema perfected
the mechanical means to render appearances-including the appearance of
movement-accurately. At thatpoint, a certainnarrativewas finished,though,of
course, pictures continue to be made. The chronicle of picture-makingis still
THE END OF ART? 19
being told, but the story-the evolutionarysaga of the conquestof visual appear-
ances-is, for all intents and purposes,over.
But if film and photographyclosed one chapterof arthistory,they did not shut
the book. For eventuallyartistsfound otherprojectsto pursue,and at least one of
these was developmental.Verisimilitudeas the object of high artistic ambition
appearedotiose in a world of mechanicalreproduction.But artistscame to recon-
struetheir aspirationin termsof anothertarget.Art-or at least serious art-was
no longer dedicatedto capturingthe appearancesof things, but to characterizing
something even more elusive-the nature of art itself. Art, that is, became
engaged in the projectof self-definition.
Recountedmagisteriallyby critics like ClementGreenberg,modern-or, more
aptly, modernist-art conceived of itself as a Kantiancritique of its own condi-
tions of possibility. Step by step, the pictureplane contracted,putativelyto dis-
close its essential natureas a flat thing. Insofar as art has a determinatenature,
the project of self-definition, like the project of verisimilitude,had a develop-
mental structure.And presumablythe projectcould be broughtto completion.
However, at this point, Danto introducesa complication to the story of mod-
ernism as it is traditionallytold. In 1964, as partof the continuingprojectof art's
self-definition,Andy Warhol,presaged by Duchamp and his readymades,pre-
sented his Brillo Box at the Stable Galleryin New York.For Danto, this work has
enormoustheoreticalrepercussions.On his account,Brillo Box demonstratesthat
something can be a work of art at the same time that its perceptually indis-
cernible, real-world counterparts are not. This raises the question of why
Warhol'sBrillo Box is art whereasidentical-lookingBrillo boxes by Proctorand
Gambleare not. Accordingto Danto, this is to pose the question"Whatis art?"-
the question of art's definition-in its properphilosophicalform.3
But, Danto continues, once artists like Warholposed the question "Whatis
art?"in its proper philosophical form (that is, as an indiscernibilityproblem),
they could make no furthertheoreticalcontribution.Answering thatquestionis a
job for philosophers,not artists. Danto writes: "The artists have made the way
open for philosophy and the momenthas arrivedat which the task must be trans-
ferredto philosophy.9'4
That is, once embarkedupon the projectof the definitionof art,therewas only
so far that artistsqua artistscould take it. They could visually focus the question
"What is art?" in its proper philosophical form-as the problem of indis-
cernibles-but they could pursue it no further as artists doing the things that
artistsdo. Any furtherprogresson the definitionof art would requirethe kind of
work typical of philosophers.5If artistswere to undertakethis chore, they would
6. ArthurDanto, "Approachingthe End of Art,"in The State of the Art (New York, 1987), 216.
22 NOEL CARROLL
7. ArthurDanto, "The Last Work of Art: Artworks and Real Things," in Aesthetics: A Critical
Anthology,ed. George Dickie and RichardJ. Sclafani (New York, 1977), 551-562.
8. Here it is importantto emphasize that I am not claiming that these art forms have in fact
advancedresearchinto the definition of art, but only that Danto has not supplied any reason to sup-
pose that, in principle, they cannot do so. Since they are not as remote from verbal expression as
Danto alleges painting to be, he at least owes us an explanationfor thinking that they cannot-as a
matterof logic-continue to contributeto the developmentalhistory of art (construedas a process of
self-definition).
24 NOEL CARROLL
In After the End of Art, Danto presents a theory of art, but one that he admits
only proposestwo necessaryconditionsfor artstatuswhich, he concedes, are not
jointly sufficient.10This leaves room for the additionof furthernecessary condi-
tions; even philosophy-or at least Danto's-hasn't completedthe projectof the
definitionof art. But why does Danto presumethat it is beyond the ingenuity of
nonverbalartiststo contrivehardcases of the sort that might reveal maieutically
furtheressential criteriaof art status?1
I do agree that there are profoundlimitationson the type of contributionthat
avant-gardeartworkscan make to producingarttheoryand thatmanyof the ways
in which art critics describe such works as "theoretical"are exorbitant.12 Insofar
as avant-gardeartworksare by definitiondisjunctiveand elliptical, they are not,
for example, functional vehicles for presenting detailed philosophical argu-
ments."3But this concession does not preclude the possibility that avant-garde
works, even nonverbalones, can make some contributionto art theory,including
the definitionof art. For carefully chosen and/orcraftedhardcases can not only
undermine existing art theories; they can pointedly indicate new theoretical
directions.
If philosopherscan imagine and/ordescribe counterexamplesthat dialectical-
ly advance theoreticalbreakthroughs-such as the additionof a necessary con-
dition to an essential definition-then artists, even nonverbal ones (even
painters), can make them. Counterexamplescan, so to say, be proposed either
abstractlyor concretely.Thus, it is too draconianto maintainthat only if art is
verbal can it advance the project of defining art. Consequently,even if painting
were essentially nonverbal,it would not, in principle,be debarredfrom continu-
ing to contributeto the definitionof art,and, thereby,to keeping arthistoryin the
evolutionarysense a going concern. Logically, thatis, whetheror not paintingor
any other art is nonverbalprovides no groundsfor presupposingthat the project
of the definitionof art "frominside" art history has necessarily reached its ulti-
mate limits of possibility.
The fourthpremise of Danto's argumentis thatpaintingis essentially not ver-
bal. This is not strictly true, since paintingscan literally incorporatewords, and
10. Danto, After the End of Art, 195. I have discussed this theory in Noel Carroll,"Danto'sNew
Definition of Art and the Problemof Art Theories,"BritishJournal of Aesthetics 37 (October, 1997),
386-392.
11. One might suspect thatDanto believes thatthe projectof defining artis over because he thinks
he's come up with the definition,therebyleaving artistsnothingelse to do in this line than-at best-
to illustrateit. But since Danto allows that he's only supplied two necessary conditions for art status
so far, there is still work to do, and, if the argumentsabove are right, there is nothing to stop artists
from pitching in.
12. For furtherargument,see Noel Carroll,"ContemporaryAvant-gardeArt and the Problem of
Theory,"Journal of Aesthetic Education29 (Fall, 1995), 1-13.
13. Of course, this observationdoes not entail that there cannot be artworksof a non-avant-garde,
verbal naturethat can pose philosophical definitions and argumentsin a coherent, classical manner.
PerhapsDanto's "The Last Workof Art" is one of them. But if this is so, then we have good reason
to believe that art faces no logical impedimentto advancingthe project of self-definitionfrom "the
inside."
26 NOEL CARROLL
there can even be paintingsof words. Nor is the formermerely a modem possi-
bility. It is a recurringfeatureof several establishedgenres, including religious,
didactic, and historicalpainting.Perhapsit is true thatpremodernpaintingnever
incorporatedwords for the purposeof making art theory outright.But inasmuch
as the traditionof painting provides a legitimate space for the use of words, it
cannotbe thatpaintingis essentially nonverbal,nor can it be said that,because it
is nonverbal,it provides no possibility to contributeto the definitionof art.
Moreover,if what is really at stake in this premise is the issue of whetheror
not visual art (or art in general) is verbal,then, as we have alreadyshown, many
forms of visual art,includingcollage and installationart, literallypossess verbal
resourcesand, therefore,cannot, without furtherargument,be alleged to be dis-
qualifiedfrom the definitiongame.
And, of course, as Danto himself concedes, much modem painting (and visu-
al art)is "verbal"in the extendedsense thatit occurs in an atmosphereof artthe-
ory. As a result, many visual choices (such as emphasis on the shape of the sup-
port)can be "read"in charade-likefashion as implicatingtheoreticalpoints. This
is the "paintedword"phenomenonto which Danto alludes in the precedingquo-
tation.But doesn't this affordpaintingenough of what Danto calls "verbality"(or
verboseness) to make it theoretically possible for painters (and other visual
artists)to continue to engage (in some sense) in the projectof the self-definition
of art?
Here it might be arguedthat insofar as paintersare verbose, they are not real-
ly paintersas such; they are not engaged in pure painting. But isn't this just a
modernistconceit? It begs the questionaboutthe natureof painting,and, anyway,
it is irrelevantwhen it comes to visual artistsin the extended sense of the term.
Perhapsit can be said that such a presuppositionconcerningpainterlypurism
supplies reasons internalto the modernistproject of why it could not carry its
conceptionof self-definitionfurtherafterthe arrivalof Brillo Box. Danto says as
much in After the End of Art.14But the limitations of modernistpainting on its
own termscannotbe mistakenfor the limitationsof eithervisual artor artin gen-
eral. Modernism as conceived by Greenberg may be historically closed in
Danto's sense, but the possibilities for the developmentalhistory of art may still
be open. That is, the Greenbergianprojectfor purepaintingmay be finished,but
it is misleading to heraldthat as "the end of art history"-at least as that phrase
has been standardlytaken since Danto reintroducedit in 1984.'1
In After the End of Art, Danto writes:
My own sense of an ending suggests thatit was the remarkabledisjunctivenessof artis-
tic activity across the entire sector,not the ratherreducedformulasof monochromepaint-
self-definition.For Hegel, art was not about the self-disclosure of the natureof
art,but aboutthe revelationof the natureof consciousness to itself, an enterprise
he thoughtphilosophywas betterqualifiedto discharge.I do not wish to endorse
Hegel's viewpoint on this matter.However,the fact that he and Danto locate the
developmentalprospects for art in different projects illustrates the point that
therearemore groundsfor an evolutionaryhistoryof artthanself-definition.And
if there are more grounds for an evolutionaryhistory of art than self-definition,
they may remainin principleto be discoveredand implementedby artists.Thus,
even if Danto has shown that the project of self-definition is necessarily fore-
closed to artists-a conclusion thatI resist-it still would not follow that arthis-
tory is necessarily over.
Danto's argumentthatarthistoryis finishedis an ambitiousphilosophicalcon-
jecture. It is philosophical because it pronounces finality of necessity. But if
premises 2), 3), 4) and 6) of the argument,and their underlyingpresuppositions,
are imperiled,then the case seems an unlikely one. Art, in an evolutionarysense,
is not over. It remains,at least in principle,open.
On the other hand, Danto's philosophy of art history might be "demytholo-
gized" in a way that reveals something importantabout the contemporarystate
of the visual arts.The prospectsfor the continuationof the developmentalhisto-
ry of art and the projectof self-definitionmay not be necessarily foreclosed, as I
hope thatI have shown. And yet, as a matterof contingentfact, it does seem that
for at least a decade or more, many serious artistsare no longer concerned-no
longer obsessed-with the projectof self-definition.Someone like RobertGober
is more preoccupiedwith the theme of traumathan he is with the essence of art,
and many of his peers care more about what they think of as politics than ontol-
ogy. There has been a palpable shift in mainstreamartworldconcerns since the
early 1970s and the heyday of modernism,and maybe Danto's end-of-artthesis
can be reconstruedas a partialexplanationof this.
For Danto has, in effect, skillfully elucidatedthe way in which the puristmod-
ernist project of the self-definitionof the mediumof painting faced limitations,
limitationsthatcannotbe surpassedby modernistpaintingfor reasons internalto
the Greenbergiandispensation. This, in turn, forced ambitious artists to look
elsewhere for their inspirationand many of the intereststhat they have taken up
in the wake of modernism'sdemise arenot congenial to the prospectsfor a devel-
opmentalhistory of art.And this accounts, in part,for why we find ourselves in
a momentwhere arthistoryconceived of as the pursuitof the projectof self-def-
inition seems stalled.
But, as I have argued,thereis no reasonin principleto suppose thatthis is any-
thing more than a hiatus, a resting point. Logically, it is possible that the project
of the self-definition of art could be revived, or that another suitably develop-
mental end might be anointed.And yet Danto is right that something has hap-
pened; something has changed. The modernistproject has collapsed internally
for the reasons he brilliantly,if left-handedly,dissects, yielding the outbreakof
pluralismhe so astutely describes in After the End of Art. Thus, though the end-
THE END OF ART? 29
Universityof Wisconsin
Madison
17. I would like to thank ArthurDanto, David Bordwell, and Sally Banes for their help in the
preparationof this paper,though the flaws herein are my doing, not theirs.