By the function of the arts, I understand the role that is ascribed to disciplinary organized knowledge in domain of the humanities, the role which they play in the making of diagnosis of the culture in statu nascendi. And by the aim of the arts, I understand the growth of knowledge about objectivized, publicly available phenomena of culture. So we can ask: what a difference in our cultural milieu is generated by the growth of knowledge about cultural phenomena? What aims are satisfied by self-knowledge, and what kind of subjectivity is built on imperative of self-knowledge? There is no better way of emphasizing the connection between functions and aims of the arts as to emphasize historicity of culture and historicity of its interpretation. Herbert Rosendorfer in The Architect of Ruins provided an excellent portrait of this doubled historicity. In the parable of merchant, who makes an attempt at selling the collection of sculptures, he has showed how our culture is desynchronized in its modes of temporal organization. The common elements of culture are inherited in manifold, complex, non-monotonous and frangible sequences of times, which are never synchronized. There is no single temporal arrangement of a culture, and everybody who wants to recover original harmony is confronted with confusions. In the arts, there are two main strategies to cope with this situation. First, hermeneutical strategy, consists in combining the aim and function of the arts in a way, in which compensative function of the arts is bound with the aim of self-cognition, whereas the second, “archaeological” one (in the Foucauldian meaning), in opposition to hermeneutics, postulates disfamiliarization of culture as a means of preserving the aims of the arts consisting in objectivity of knowledge.