Eighteenth-century European aesthetics was reasonably successful in providing an understanding of all art, including early abstract art, until the 1960s, when artists self-consciously rebelled against earlier notions of art. █████ ███ ████ ██ █████ ██████████ ███████ ██ █████ █████████ ███ ███████ ███ ██████ ██ ███ █████████ ██████ ████ ████████ █████ ███ ██ ██ ████████ ██████ ██ ███████████
The argument concludes that there cannot be any complete theory of aesthetics. This is supported by an example of a time period in the 1960s, when beautiful new art could not be understood by the time period’s current theory of aesthetics.
The argument is flawed because it fails to consider the possibility that another theory of aesthetics could be more complete than the theory current to the 1960s. Even if one specific theory of aesthetics turns out to be incomplete, there might still be some other theory of aesthetics that can provide an understanding of all art.
The reasoning above is most ██████████ ██ █████████ ██ ████ ██
takes for granted ████ ██ ██ ████ █████████ ███ █ ████████ █████████ ██████ ██ ███████ ███ ███ ██████ ██ ███████████ ███ ████ ███ ██ ██ ███████ ███ ███ ██████ ██ ████████████████ ██████████ ███
presumes, without providing ██████████████ ████ ████████ █████████ ██ ███ █████ ███████ ███████ ███████ ██ ███ ███ ███ ██████ ██ █████ █████████ ██ ██████████████████ ████████ █████████ ██████
presumes, without providing ██████████████ ████ ██ █████████ ██████ █████████ ██ ███ ████ ██ ███ █████ ██████ ██ ███████ ██ ███████
presumes, without providing ██████████████ ████ ███ ████ ███ █████ ██ ███ ████ ███ ████ ██████ ██ ██████████ █████████ ██ ██████████████████ ████████ ██████████
presumes, without providing ██████████████ ████ ██████████████████ ████████ ██████████ ██ ██ ████████████ ██ ██ █████████ ██████ ███ ██