Very interesting perspective. I agree with his criticism of the disclosure/representation distinction, and like the path he takes back into ways of being in the world as the means of retaining truth-aptness.

I do not agree though with his reading of Frege/Russell/Wittgenstein nor with his insistence on subjectivity as the locus of art and thought. I think there's an equivocation here. Frege and the like employ subjectivity formally in descriptions of language usage rather than as actual parameters in making meaning, whereas for the artist subjectivity is an ineluctable feature of the artwork if we're to understand it's logically articulate content as determined to some degree by the artist's experience.

I suppose we can't criticize him too much, since he's an art historian rather than a philosopher. But there's an apparent incongruity between tying linguistic meaning to truth in usage and artistic meaning to truth in usage, which lies in the depth of prefigured structural guideposts in the former which are much more vague (but perhaps also more beautiful) in the latter.