Martindale (2009) suggests that all of art is coming, or has already come, to an end. Following Hegel's lead, he suggests that all new art must communicate while being recognizably new. These two criteria-communication and noveltycannot provoke any Hegelian synthesis because eventually one of these criteria must be consistently violated. As arts evolve, the likelihood of communicative value in a particular new artwork decreases significantly if it is not sufficiently new, and newness is increasingly hard to obtain. Moreover, because art has continually sought out new venues, these venues will be at increasing distance from some norm. Thus, a particular new and novel artwork runs the risk of no longer communicating.One might be skeptical of such a bold view but Martindale also summarizes much data-most of it his own-in support of part of his claim. He finds increases in unpredictability and/or novelty in French, British, and American poetry; English, French, and German music; Italian, French, English, and American painting; Japanese graphic works; and diverse sculpture-all over many centuries.All of these data are entirely believable, and they are wonderful to have. And importantly, they support Martindale's (1975Martindale's ( , 1990 view of the evolution of the arts. But do they also support their demise? Martindale has only predicted (for poetry) or claimed (for classical music, painting, and sculpture) such ends. How to assess this?If the arts have ended, such a conclusion depends entirely on what is meant by the two critical terms-the end and the arts. In response I offer five gambits: the first three suggest that the end of art seems not to be near; on the other hand, the fourth suggests that the end of older art is tautologically defined; and the last 153