In the context of globalization, the end of art would not merely be attributed to the ”the end of history” as a backdrop; furthermore, it would be more specifically and immediately related to ”the end of modernity” that occurred in Europe and America. From an Eastern perspective, neither before the European or American modernity (temporally) nor outside the modernity (spatially), has the problem of ”art” of a modem bearing ever existed. On these grounds, the end of art cannot be said to appear as a global problem. However, as art is bound to come to an end, the aesthetics of everyday life would follow up and stand out in the wake of its disappearance, with conceptual art, performance art, and land art each representing three distinct developments. That is to say, art ends up in concept, art returns to body and art reverses to nature. And, accordingly, conceptualism aesthetics, somaesthetics, and environmental aesthetics would presumably spring up as theoretical attempts to reflect on the changes. Besides, these newborn theories are considered capable of corresponding relatively to conceptualism aesthetics of traditional Chinese Chan Buddhism, all-around aesthetics of Confucianism, and naturalism aesthetics of Daoism. Since traditional Chinese aesthetics is by nature the reflection of art of living (I called it Living Aesthetics), new conclusions could be hopefully reached, if taking it as a framework of reference, in our effort to rethink the problem of the end of art. In my understanding of Chinese traditional culture, aesthetics takes its earthy roots in everyday life while on the other hand it also draws on extra-everyday life as its source of tension.