When reading this footnote by Kozhev to the Hegel’s seminar from 1938-39, it is appropriate to ask yourself: what is this list of practices (some kind of pastoral picture) that remain after the human qualities disappear in a human being? Art, love, play - are they free from the negativity of praxis? Do they make the Man happy by relieving him of the burden of "acting"? But if Hegel was "flipped from head to feet," then the same procedure is valid in regards to the comments on Hegel. Kozhev raises the question of the end of history. Like prehistoric, posthistorical time - this is the territory of ideology, a place where imaginary ideas settle, legitimizing the power of the historical notion itself (class contradictions).

Artists know better than others that art will never bring "happiness", because they interact with it as with alienated labor in the capitalist system, whereas the viewer is free from this historicity of art and can perceive it as a product or commodity that promises the illusion of happiness. To be a modernist artist, starting from Manet and Courbet, means to exhibit not so much the products and goods (approach art from the viewer’s side), but the very logic of the alienation of artistic labor in the form of an art work. What does it mean - “in the form of an art work”? What is an art work ideologically? An art work is something that overcomes the history of its creation. In the text "Art and objectivity" Michael Fried says that painting has a pictorial form that overcomes and defeats the objectiveity of the canvas, thereby distinguishing it from other , everyday and utilitarian things. The art work, therefore, is the removal of the contradictions of commodity production, the end of the history of labor in the microcosm of the canvas. But if we say that a modernist artist exposes the very logic of the alienation of artistic labor in the form of a work, then this can only mean one thing: the work plays the end of history as if it happened in the world of unsolved contradictions.