ing the inherent subjectivity of knowledge-claims is not a problem of
linguistic expression but rather a matter of taking statements and claims
in the right way. In Hegel’s terms, this is not a problem of linguistic
articulation but a problem of philosophical Bildungand reflection, of
both philosophers and their audience.^48
The point of controversy is rather deep here, and it might be hard to
decide whether Hegel or Schelling is right. It would be an overstatement
to say that it is a controversy between two concepts of philosophy,
because this would not account for the fundamental agreement between
Schelling and Hegel regarding the aim and the ends of philosophy.^49
Nevertheless, what one will accept as a contribution to philosophy
depends on which side one takes: Schelling’s or Hegel’s.
- The Future of Art
3.1 ARTISTICPROGRESSACCORDING TODANTO ANDHEGELExamining and criticizing Danto’s interpretation of Hegel is one thing,
but asking if he may be right with respect to the future of art is quite
another thing. Avant-garde art could not even possibly occur in Hegel’s
aesthetics. So we will have to assess Danto’s thesis that the progress of
art has reached its end with the decline of avant-garde art without
Hegel’s help. But it may be useful to compare at first Danto’s idea of
artistic progress with the one developed in Hegel’s aesthetic theory.
Let us return to Danto’s overall conception of artistic progress first.
It amounts to the notion of art as philosophy, as finally grasping its own
nature. Other, more local projects, like mimesis or artistic expression,
appear to be nothing but aspects or phases of this overall process.
Artworks are supposed to be about themselves.^50 There are some strik-
ing similarities between this philosophical theory of art and some
romantic conceptions of what art making is all about. Friedrich Schlegel
wrote quite a lot about the so called ‘transcendental poetry’, which he
also labeled ‘poetry of poetry’ (Poesie der Poesie), i.e. a kind of
poetry—and art—that is essentially self-reflective or self-referential.^51
The Schlegel brothers both produced various instances of transcenden-
tal poetry themselves.^52 But neither Hegel nor Schelling liked this idea
very much. It may seem astonishing, but both scorn this kind of roman-
tic poetry vehemently. They even express their contempt in similar
words.^53 Art, according to Hegel and Schelling, has to be about some-
thing important and substantial if it is to be of any aesthetic significance
at all. This does not mean that they argue against artistic self-reference,
A Prophecy Come True? Dante and Hegel on the End of Art 69