Contra Danto-2

Theory is driven by desire. In other words, what the theorist says is true of logical necessity has, in truth, nothing to do with logic. It is what the theorist wants to be true. Marx wanted to see the triumph of the proletariat and invented a splendid architecture of argument to show that the proletariat would triumph. In case you've forgotten, that didn't happen. Something like the opposite happened. Now, Arthur Danto's argument for the end of art is, to put it mildly, not as grand as Marx's. But it is just as grandiose, for the desire that drives it is just as intense as the desire that drove Marx to imagine a workers' paradise. Given that Danto's argument is nonsense, there is only one one question: why did he want to see the end of art? What about that denouement seemed so paradisiacal to him?
.
Of course, there is never just one question. Here's another: how was it possible for the art world to take so seriously a writer who advanced a lame argument for, of all things, the end of art?