There has been quite a large debate centered around the death of art since it was first proposed by the 20th century American philosopher Arthur Danto. However, the roots of this idea can be traced back to 19th century German philosopher Friedrich Hegel, who first introduced the notion that art no longer possessed any historical importance. While the “death of art” is a significant issue, the implications for art’s death is also of great importance. Many scholars in writing about the death of art have merely discussed the topic within the boundaries of art, as seen in the works of Carroll (Noell Carroll, 2003, pp, 95-100), Kelly (Micheal Kelly, 1998, pp, 30–43), and Hilmer (Brigitte Hilmer, 1998, pp, 71-86). However, these works overlook the intention of Hegel when he originally argued for art’s end. For Hegel, art, as the sensuous manifestation of the Absolute Spirit, could no longer include Spirit’s rich self-conscious during the Romanticism era, and so could no longer fulfill its purpose of disclosing Spirit. Thus, art’s existence has diverged from its essence, causing its disposal by Spirit. In this sense, the death of art marks its end in actualizing the freedom of Spirit, in revealing truth. As this claim demonstrates rationality’s violence towards art, the death of art should not be limited to a disciplinary topic, but elevated to a global problem regarding art’s existence and relationship with freedom.

​

This paper examines the claim of art’s historical end inside of Hegel’s historical model, and defends art from its supposed death. Being centered around Spirit, the structure of this study will first present Hegel and Danto’s respective arguments, and bring in criticisms from other scholars, before objecting to these criticisms. The second section argues for a flaw in Hegel and Danto’s Spirit, which results in a logically unsound reason for the death of art. Finally, this paper will propose that not only is art still alive and prosperous, but can further the freedom of Spirit.