thumb|250px|right|[[Venus de Milo on display at the
Louvre]]
Art history has historically been understood as the
academic study of objects of art in their
historical development and stylistic contexts, i.e.
genre,
design,
format, and
look. This includes the "major" arts of painting, sculpture, and architecture as well as the "minor" arts of ceramics, furniture, and other decorative objects. The historical backbone of the discipline is a celebratory chronology of beautiful creations funded by upper class men in western Europe. Such a "
canon" remains prominent, as indicated by the selection of objects present in art history textbooks. Nonetheless, since the mid-20th century there has been an effort to re-define the discipline to be more inclusive of non-Western art, art made by women, and vernacular creativity.
As a term,
Art history (also
history of art) encompasses several methods of studying the
visual arts; in common usage referring to works of art and architecture. Aspects of the discipline overlap. As the art historian
Ernst Gombrich once observed, "the field of art history [is] much like
Caesar's
Gaul, divided in three parts inhabited by three different, though not necessarily hostile tribes: (i) the
connoisseurs, (ii) the
critics, and (iii) the academic art historians".
As a discipline, art history is distinguished from art criticism, which is concerned with establishing a relative artistic value upon individual works with respect to others of comparable style, or sanctioning an entire style or movement; and
art theory or "
philosophy of art", which is concerned with the fundamental nature of art. One branch of this area of study is
aesthetics, which includes investigating the enigma of the
sublime and determining the essence of beauty. Technically, art history is not these things, because the
art historian uses
historical method to answer the questions:
How did the artist come to create the work?,
Who were the patrons?,
Who were his or her teachers?,
Who was the audience?,
Who were his or her disciples?,
What historical forces shaped the artist's oeuvre, and
How did he or she and the creation, in turn, affect the course of artistic, political, and social events?This is not to say that art history is only a
biographical endeavor. In fact, art historians often root their studies in the close scrutiny of individual objects. They thus attempt to answer in historically specific ways, questions such as:
What are key features of this style?,
What meaning did this object convey?,
How does it function visually?,
Did the artist meet their goals well?,
What symbols are involved?, and
Does it function discursively?Definition
Art history as we know it today began in the
nineteenth century but has precedents dating to the ancient world. Like the analysis of historical trends in politics, literature, and the sciences, the discipline benefits from the clarity and portability of the written word, but
art historians also rely on
formal analysis,
semiotics,
psychoanalysis and
iconography. Advances in photographic reproduction and printing techniques after World War II increased the ability of reproductions of artworks. Such technologies have helped to advance the discipline in profound ways, as they have enabled easy comparisons of objects. The study of visual art thus described, can be a practice that involves understanding
context,
form, and social significance.
Methodologies
Art historians employ a number of
methods in their research into the qualities, nature and history of objects.
Art historians often examine work in the
context of its time. At best, this is done in a manner which respects its creator's motivations and imperatives; with consideration of the desires and prejudices of its patrons and sponsors; with a comparative analysis of themes and approaches of the creator's colleagues and teachers; and with consideration of iconography and
symbolism. In short, this approach examines the work of art in the context of the world within which it was created.
Art historians also often examine work through an analysis of form; that is, the creator's use of
line,
shape,
color,
texture, and composition. This approach examines how the artist uses a
two-dimensional picture plane or the
three dimensions of
sculptural or
architectural space to create his or her art. The way these individual elements are employed results in
representational or
non-representational art. Is the artist imitating an object or image found in nature? If so, it is representational. The closer the art hews to perfect imitation, the more the art is
realistic. Is the artist not imitating, but instead relying on symbolism, or in an important way striving to capture nature's essence, rather than copy it directly? If so the art is non-representational—also called
abstract. Of course, realism and abstraction exist on a continuum.
Impressionism is an example of a representational style that was not directly imitative, but strove to create an "impression" of nature. If the work is
notrepresentational and is an expression of the artist's feelings, longings and aspirations, or is a search for ideals of beauty and form, the work is
non-representational or a work of
expressionism.An
iconographical analysis is one which focuses on particular design elements of an object. Through a close reading of such elements, it is possible to trace their lineage, and with it draw conclusions regarding the origins and trajectory of these
motifs. In turn, it is possible to make any number of observations regarding the social, cultural, economic, and aesthetic values of those responsible for producing the object.
Finally, many art historians use
critical theory to frame their inquiries into objects. Theory is most often used when dealing with more recent objects, those from the late 19th century onward. Critical theory in art history is often borrowed from
literary scholars, and it involves the application of a non-artistic analytical framework to the study of art objects.
Feminist,
Marxist,
critical race,
queer, and
postcolonial theories are all well-established in the discipline. As in literary studies, there is an interest among scholars in nature and the environment, but the direction that this will take in the discipline has yet to be determined.
Historical development
Pliny the Elder and ancient precedents
The earliest surviving writing on art that can be classified as art history are the passages in
Pliny the Elder's
Natural History concerning the development of
Greek sculpture and painting. From them it is possible to trace the ideas of
Xenokrates of Sicyon, a Greek sculptor who was perhaps the first art historian. Pliny's work, while mainly an
encyclopaedia of the sciences, has thus been influential from the
Renaissance onwards. (Passages about techniques used by the painter
Apelles have been especially well-known.) Similar, though independent, developments occurred in 6th century China, where a canon of worthy artists was established by writers in the scholar-official class. These writers, being necessarily proficient in calligraphy, were artists themselves. The artists are described in the
Six Principles of Painting formulated by
Xie He.
Vasari and artists' biographies
thumb|Location|[[Giorgio Vasari,
Self-portrait c.1567]]
thumb|[[Anton von Maron,
Portrait of Johann Joachim Winckelmann, 1768]]
While personal reminiscences of art and artists have long been written and read (see
Lorenzo Ghiberti for the best early example), it was Giorgio Vasari, the Tuscan painter, sculptor and author of the
Lives of the Painters, who wrote the first true
history of art. He emphasized art's progression and development, which was a milestone in this field. His was a personal and a historical account, featuring biographies of individual Italian artists, many of whom were his contemporaries and personal acquaintances. The most renowned of these was
Michelangelo, and Vasari's account is enlightening, though biased in places. Vasari's ideas about art held sway until the 18th century, when criticism was leveled at his biographical account of history.
Winckelmann and art criticism
Scholars such as
Johann Joachim Winckelmann (1717-1768), criticised Vasari's "cult" of artistic personality, and they argued that the real emphasis in the study of art should be the views of the learned beholder and not the unique viewpoint of the charismatic artist. Winckelmann's writings thus were the beginnings of art criticism. Winckelmann critiqued the artistic excesses of
Baroque and
Rococo forms, and was instrumental in reforming taste in favor of the more sober
Neoclassicism.
Jacob Burckhardt (1818 - 1897), one of the founders of art history, noted that Winckelmann was 'the first to distinguish between the periods of ancient art and to link the history of style with world history'. From Winckelmann until the mid-20th century, the field of art history was dominated by German-speaking academics. Winckelmann's work thus marked the entry of art history into the high-philosophical discourse of German culture.
Winckelmann was read avidly by
Johann Wolfgang Goethe and
Friedrich Schiller, both of whom began to write on the history of art, and his account of the
Laocoon occasioned a response by
Lessing. The emergence of art as a major subject of philosophical speculation was solidified by the appearance of
Immanuel Kant's
Critique of Judgment in 1790, and was furthered by
Hegel's
Lectures on Aesthetics. Hegel's philosophy served as the direct inspiration for
Karl Schnaase's work. Schnaase's
Niederländische Briefe established the theoretical foundations for art history as an autonomous discipline, and his
Geschichte der bildenden Künste, one of the first historical surveys of the history of art from antiquity to the Renaissance, facilitated the teaching of art history in German-speaking universities. Schnaase's survey was published contemporaneously with a similar work by
Franz Theodor Kugler.
Wölfflin and stylistic analysis
Heinrich Wölfflin (1864-1945), who studied under Burckhardt in Basel, is the "father" of modern art history. Wölfflin taught at the universities of Berlin, Basel, Munich, and Zurich. A number of students went on to distinguished careers in art history, including
Jakob Rosenberg and
Frida Schottmuller. He introduced a scientific approach to the history of art, focusing on three concepts. Firstly, he attempted to study art using psychology, particularly by applying the work of
Wilhelm Wundt. He argued, among other things, that art and architecture are good if they resemble the human body. For example, houses were good if their
façades looked like faces. Secondly, he introduced the idea of studying art through comparison. By comparing individual paintings to each other, he was able to make distinctions of
style. His book
Renaissance and Baroque developed this idea, and was the first to show how these stylistic periods differed from one another. In contrast to
Giorgio Vasari, Wölfflin was uninterested in the biographies of artists. In fact he proposed the creation of an "art history without names." Finally, he studied art based on ideas of
nationhood. He was particularly interested in whether there was an inherently "Italian" and an inherently "
German" style. This last interest was most fully articulated in his monograph on the German artist
Albrecht Dürer.
Riegl, Wickhoff, and the Vienna School
Contemporaneous with Wölfflin's career, a major school of art-historical thought developed at the
University of Vienna. The first generation of the Vienna School was dominated by
Alois Riegl and
Franz Wickhoff, both students of
Moritz Thausing, and was characterized by a tendency to reassess neglected or disparaged periods in the history of art. Riegl and Wickhoff both wrote extensively on the art of
late antiquity, which before them had been considered as a period of decline from the classical ideal. Riegl also contributed to the revaluation of the Baroque.
The next generation of professors at Vienna included
Max Dvořák, Julius von Schlosser, Hans Tietze, Karl Maria Swoboda, and
Josef Strzygowski. A number of the most important twentieth-century art historians, including
Ernst Gombrich, received their degrees at Vienna at this time. The term "Second Vienna School" (or "New Vienna School") usually refers to the following generation of Viennese scholars, including
Hans Sedlmayr, Otto Pächt, and Guido Kaschnitz von Weinberg. These scholars began in the 1930s to return to the work of the first generation, particularly to Riegl and his concept of
Kunstwollen, and attempted to develop it into a full-blown art-historical methodology. Sedlmayr, in particular, rejected the minute study of iconography, patronage, and other approaches grounded in historical context, preferring instead to concentrate on the aesthetic qualities of a work of art. As a result, the Second Vienna School gained a reputation for unrestrained and irresponsible
formalism, and was furthermore colored by Sedlmayr's overt racism and membership in the Nazi party. This latter tendency was, however, by no means shared by all members of the school; Pächt, for example, was himself Jewish, and was forced to leave Vienna in the 1930s.
Panofsky and iconography
thumb| Photographer unknown, Aby Warburg c. 1900
Today's understanding of the symbolic content of art comes from a group of scholars who gathered in
Hamburg in the 1920s. The most prominent among them were
Erwin Panofsky,
Aby Warburg, and
Fritz Saxl. Together they developed much of the vocabulary that continues to be used in the 21st century by art historians. "Iconography"--with roots meaning "symbols from writing" refers to subject matter n art derived from written sources—especially scripture and mythology. "Iconology" is a broader term that referred to all symbolism, whether derived from a specific text or not. Today art historians sometimes use these terms interchangeably.
Panofsky, in his early work, also developed the theories of Riegl, but became eventually more preoccupied with iconography, and in particular with the transmission of themes related to classical antiquity in the Middle Ages and Renaissance. In this respect his interests coincided with those of Warburg, the son of a wealthy family who had assembled an impressive library in Hamburg devoted to the study of the classical tradition in later art and culture. Under Saxl's auspices, this library was developed into a research institute, affiliated with the
University of Hamburg, where Panofsky taught.
Warburg died in 1929, and in the 1930s Saxl and Panofsky, both Jewish, were forced to leave Hamburg. Saxl settled in London, bringing Warburg's library with him and establishing the
Warburg Institute. Panofsky settled in Princeton at the
Institute for Advanced Study. In this respect they were part of an extraordinary influx of German art historians into the English-speaking academy in the 1930s. These scholars were largely responsible for establishing art history as a legitimate field of study in the English-speaking world, and the influence of Panofsky's methodology, in particular, determined the course of American art history for a generation.
Freud and psychoanalysis
Heinrich Wölfflin was not the only scholar to invoke psychological theories in the study of art. Psychoanalyst
Sigmund Freud wrote a book on the artist
Leonardo da Vinci, in which he used Leonardo's paintings to interrogate the artist's
psyche and sexual orientation. Freud inferred from his analysis that Leonardo was probably
homosexual.
thumbnail|Group photo 1909 in front of [[Clark University. Front row:
Sigmund Freud,
Granville Stanley Hall,
Carl Jung; back row:
Abraham A. Brill,
Ernest Jones,
Sandor Ferenczi]]
The use of posthumous material to perform psychoanalysis is controversial among art historians, especially since the sexual mores of Leonardo's time and Freud's are different, it is often attempted. One of the best-known psychoanalytic scholars is Laurie Schnieder Adams, who wrote a popular textbook,
Art Across Time, and a book
Art and Psychoanalysis.
Jung and archetypes
Carl Jung also applied psychoanalytic theory to art.
C.G. Jung was a
Swiss psychiatrist, an influential thinker, and founder of
analytical psychology. Jung's approach to psychology emphasized understanding the
psyche through exploring the worlds of
dreams, art,
mythology, world
religion and
philosophy. Much of his life's work was spent exploring Eastern and Western philosophy,
alchemy,
astrology,
sociology, as well as
literature and the arts. His most notable contributions include his concept of the psychological
archetype, the
collective unconscious, and his theory of
synchronicity. Jung believed that many experiences perceived as
coincidence were not merely due to
chance but, instead, suggested the manifestation of parallel events or circumstances reflecting this governing dynamic. He argued that a
collective unconscious and archetypal imagery were detectable in art. His ideas were particularly popular among American
Abstract expressionists in the 1940s and 1950s. His work inspired the
surrealist concept of drawing imagery from dreams and the unconscious.
Jung emphasized the importance of balance and harmony. He cautioned that modern humans rely too heavily on science and logic and would benefit from integrating spirituality and appreciation of the unconscious realm. His work not only triggered analytical work by art historians, but it became integrated an integral part of art-making.
Jackson Pollock, for example, famously created a series of drawings to accompany his psychoanalytic sessions with his Jungian psychoanalyst, Dr. Joseph Henderson. Henderson who later published the drawings in a text devoted to Pollock's sessions realized how powerful the drawings were as a therapeutic tool.
The legacy psychoanalysis in art history has been profound, and extends beyone Freud and Jung. The prominent feminist art historian Griselda Pollock, for example, draws upon psychoanalysis both in her reading into contemporary art and in her rereading of modernist art. With
Griselda Pollock's reading of French feminist psychoanalysis and in particular the writings of
Julia Kristeva and
Bracha L. Ettinger, as with Rosalind Krauss readings of
Jacques Lacan and
Jean-François Lyotard and Catherine de Zegher's curatorial rereading of art,
Feminist theory written in the fields of
French feminism and Psychoanalysis has strongly informed the reframing of both men and women artists in art history.
Marx and ideology
During the mid-20th century art historians embraced
social history by using critical approaches. The goal is to show how art interacts with power structures in society. One critical approach that art historians used was Marxism. Marxist art history attempted to show how art was tied to specific classes, how images contain information about the economy, and how images can make the status quo seem natural (
ideology). Perhaps the best-known Marxist was
Clement Greenberg, who came to prominence during the late 1930s with his essay "
Avant-Garde and Kitsch". In the essay Greenberg claimed that the
avant-garde arose in order to defend
aesthetic standards from the decline of
taste involved in
consumer society, and seeing kitsch and art as opposites. Greenberg further claimed that
avant-garde and
Modernist art was a means to resist the leveling of culture produced by
capitalist propaganda. Greenberg appropriated the German word '
kitsch' to describe this consumerism, though its
connotations have since changed to a more affirmative notion of left-over materials of capitalist culture. Greenberg later became well-known for examining the formal properties of modern art.
Meyer Schapiro is one of the best-remembered Marxist art historians of the mid-20th century. Although he wrote about numerous time periods and themes in art, he is best remembered for his commentary on sculpture from the late
Middle Ages and early
Renaissance, at which time he saw evidence of
capitalism emerging and
feudalism declining. Arnold Hauser wrote the first Marxist survey of Western Art, titled
The Social History of Art. In this book he attempted to show how class consciousness was reflected in major art periods. His book was controversial when published during the 1950s because it makes generalizations about entire eras, a strategy now called "
vulgar Marxism".
T.J. Clark was the first art historian writing from a Marxist perspective to abandon
vulgar Marxism. He wrote Marxist art histories of several
impressionist and
realist artists, including
Gustave Courbet and
Édouard Manet. These books focused closely on the political and economic climates in which the art was created.
Nochlin and feminism
Linda Nochlin's essay "Why have there been no great women artists?" kick-started feminist art history during the 1970s and remains one of the most widely-read essays about female artists. In it she applies a feminist critical framework to show systematic exclusion of women from art training.
Griselda Pollock is another prominent feminist art historian, whose use of psychoanalytic theory is described above. While feminist art history can focus on any time period and location, much attention has been given to the Modern era. Some of this scholarship centers on the
feminist art movement, which referred specifically to the experience of women.
Barthes and semiotics
As opposed to iconography which seeks to identify meaning,
semiotics is concerned with how meaning is created.
Roland Barthes’s connoted and denoted meanings are paramount to this examination. In any particular work of art, an interpretation depends on the identification of
denoted meaning—the recognition of a visual sign, and the
connoted meaning—the instant cultural associations that come with recognition. The main concern of the semiotic art historian is to come up with ways to navigate and interpret connoted meaning.
Semiotic art history seeks to uncover the codified meaning or meanings in an aesthetic object by examining its connectedness to a
collective consciousness. Art historians do not commonly commit to any one particular brand of semiotics but rather construct an amalgamated version which they incorporate into their collection of analytical tools. For example,
Meyer Shapiro borrowed
Saussure’s differential meaning in effort to read signs as they exist within a system. According to Schapiro, to understand the meaning of frontality in a specific pictorial context, it must be differentiated from, or viewed in relation to, alternate possibilities such as a
profile, or a
three-quarter view. Schapiro combined this method with the work of
Charles Sanders Peircewhose object, sign, and interpretant provided a structure for his approach. Alex Potts demonstrates the application of Peirce’s concepts to visual representation by examining them in relation to the
Mona Lisa. By seeing the Mona Lisa, for example, as something beyond its materiality is to identify it as a sign. It is then recognized as referring to an object outside of itself, a woman, or Mona Lisa. The image does not seem to denote religious meaning and can therefore be assumed to be a portrait. This interpretation leads to a chain of possible interpretations: who was the sitter in relation to
Leonardo? What significance did she have to him? Or, maybe she is an icon for all of womankind. This chain of interpretation, or “unlimited semiosis” is endless; the art historian’s job is to place boundaries on possible interpretations as much as it is to reveal new possibilities.
["A. Potts, 'Sign', in R.S. Nelson and R. Shiff, Critical Terms for Art History 2nd edn (Chicago 2003) pp. 24."]Semiotics operates under the theory that an image can only be understood from the viewer’s perspective. The artist is supplanted by the viewer as the purveyor of meaning, even to the extent that an interpretation is still valid regardless of whether the creator had intended it.
Rosalind Krauss espoused this concept in her essay “In the Name of Picasso.” She denounced the artist’s monopoly on meaning and insisted that meaning can only be derived after the work has been removed from its historical and social context.
Mieke Bal argued similarly that meaning does not even exist until the image is observed by the viewer. It is only after acknowledging this that meaning can become opened up to other possibilities such as feminism or psychoanalysis.
Divisions by period
The field of Art History is traditionally divided into specializations or concentrations based on eras and regions, with further sub-division based on media. Thus, someone might specialize in "
19th century German architecture" or in "
16th century Tuscan sculpture." Sub-fields are often included under a specialization. For example, the Ancient
Near East,
Greece,
Rome, and
Egypt are all typically considered special concentrations of
Ancient art. In some cases, these specializations may be closely allied (as Greece and Rome, for example), while in others such alliances are far less natural (
Indian art versus
Korean art, for example).
Non-Western art is a relative newcomer to the Art Historical canon. Recent revisions of the semantic division between art and artifact have recast objects created in non-Western cultures in more aesthetic terms. Relative to those studying
Ancient Rome or the
Italian Renaissance, scholars specializing in
Africa, the
Ancient Americas and
Asia are a growing minority.
Professional Organization
In the United States the most important art history organization is the . It organizes an annual conference and publishes the
Art Bulletin and
Art Journal. Similar organizations exist in other parts of the world, as well as for specializations, such as architectural history and Renaissance art history. In the UK, for example, the is the premiere organization, and it publishes a journal titled
Art History.
See also
General
- Art (including the theoretical overview)