Abstract

Arthur Danto's theory of art contains a theological way of thinking about indiscernible realities that have been the subject of theological dispute for almost two millennia. This long tradition raises new questions for how to understand that theory. Transfiguration – metamorphosis – necessarily involves a change at some point in appearance or in what Danto treats as aesthetic properties inessential to the being of art. Transubstantiation means an ontological change that excludes a priori any perceptible difference. Danto often insists on this very particular aspect when he explains the relationship between artworks and commonplace objects: a non‐art object can look exactly like an artwork. In the Catholic tradition, transubstantiation can occur only if those performing the sacrament act faithfully and in conformity to a tradition. Danto's theory is understand better by reference to transubstantiation than to transfiguration.