The study of aesthetics is like an inner voyage, an exploration into the foundations of what we consider art. In this book we have become acquainted with very diverse approaches towards art. The relevance of the different theories is heavily dependent on the formulation of the problem concerned. For example, reflections on the question of "What is art?' almost naturally lead to the classical theories from Part I, in one form or another. These classical viewpoints offer well-developed ideas about the essence of art, which, for all their limitations, makes them relevant to any discussion of art, if only to criticize them. Again, where the searchlight is turned on the historical and social dimensions of art, one can hardly ignore the theories discussed in Part II. Finally, if one wishes to explore the way art speaks a language, and how this language needs to be conceived and studied, a dialogue with structuralism and post-structuralism will impose itself. In each of these situations, the relevance or use of the theories that are being considered will be greatly dependent on the questions that we formulate concerning art-related issues. However, we do not have to adopt such a neutral and relative attitude. From this book it is obvious that all theories show certain weaknesses or suggest fundamental objections. The systematic comparison between the different approaches invites further discussion, leading towards a more synthetic perspective. Therefore, I will not go over the objections again but rather, by way of epilogue and conclusion, clarify their mutual coherence. Of course, in doing so, I am speaking wholly on my own account, since such a synthesis also implies a personal stand.