In this case, a belated tribute (6th March 2014) to the Late Arthur Danto by architect Steven Holl was frankly way over the top, claiming:
ARTHUR DANTO, who departed us on October 25, 2013, was the greatest philosopher of art of our time.
Okay it's an elergy and everything but is he even remotely in the same league as contemporaries E. H. Gombrich, Richard Wollheim, Nelson Goodman, Joseph Margolis or even Malcom Budd (the last one for all you ex- UCLers out there...)?
Danto's contribution is what? To coin the term 'art world'? - the meaning of which remained highly debateable even within discussion of the so-called 'Institutional Theory of Art' that George Dickie then erects around it - . Danto was big on self-promotion, especially in NYC, but as philosophy he starts off a Merleau-Pontyesque existentialist and steadily retreats to Kantian idealism, via a quick detour through Wittgenstein's late probings but adds N O T H I N G with his flawed observations on Warhol, his reckless historicism and medicore tastes. His dabbling with Wittgensteinian notions of 'indiscernible properties' got him exactly nowhere as to understanding abstraction or depiction. His 'thought experiments' were no more than lapses in logic. Okay it's not the place to tear the guy down on his farewell but Holl's self-serving reminisence (Danto reviewed his architecure favourably in AF in 2004) was needlessly offensive to philosophers and artists. You want to say what a swell guy he was (though others swear he was crrr-a-zee...) go ahead, you enjoyed his writing, go ahead - but don't exaggerate his importance don't insult a whole field (or two) of serious inquiry.
All I said was 'Got to be kidding' and then a link to my review of his last book. Clearly five months after Danto's passing the staff at AF are still too broken up to even countenance dissent.