The paper argues that something is art only if (i) it belongs to aspecial kind of internal history and (ii) needs to be understood and appreciatedin the light of such history. This goes against both the traditional viewthat art has a timeless, ahistorical essence and the historicist view that therecan be no ahistorical perspective for understanding art. The paper draws onHegel's view that art needs to be understood through its history, but rejectsthe idea that the history of art has an end in

more »

... e double sense of a goal and anend point. It also rejects Arthur Danto's Hegel-inspired claim that the ahistoricalessence of art is revealed at the end of its history and opens the door to anatural alliance between philosophers of art and art historians.