丹托認為藝術史的發展在1964 年已經終結，因為出現了沃霍爾的《布瑞洛盒子》。它只是日常事物，我們根本不能分辨這件作品和真正的布瑞洛盒子。但藝術終結並不表示不能再有藝術創作，也不表示藝術不再有價值。它只是意味藝術概念的可能性已經窮盡了，藝術在風格方面不能再有突破，藝術史也不可能再有發展方向。丹托認為藝術終結後有兩個後果。一個是在藝術終結後可以從非外顯性質給藝術下本質定義，另一個是多元主義。丹托受黑格爾的歷史觀所影響，用「藝術自我認識」來解釋藝術的發展，而現代主義藝術的發展就在於不斷尋找藝術的本質，藝術終結即表示藝術不能進一步認識自身，必須將這個任務交給哲學來完成。雖然我大致同意丹托對藝術史的解釋，但我認為現代主義藝術的終結並不表示藝術的終結。

Danto thinks that the development of art history was over in
1964, because Andy Warhol’s “Brillo Box” appeared. We can no longer
make a distinction between this work of art and the real Brillo Box,
which is just a commonplace object. However, the end of art does not
mean we cannot make art anymore, nor does it mean that art has lost its
value. It just means the concept of art is exhausted. No new style of art
can emerge. There is no direction for art history to go on. Danto told us
that there are two consequences of the end of art. One is we can find the
essence of art and define art in terms of non-manifest properties. The
other is pluralism. Danto was influenced by Hegel’s view of art history,
he used “self understanding of art” to interpret the development of art,
and he thought that the development of modernist art is to find out the
essence of art. The end of art means that art can no longer understands
itself, it should pass this mission to philosophy. In general, I agree with that the interpretation of art history given by Danto, but I think the end of modernism does not necessarily mean the end of art.