Results found: 1

Search results

Sort By:

Limit search:

ART HISTORY: WHAT KIND OF SCIENCE?

100%

Bartlova M.

Umění (Art)

2006

vol. 54

issue 3

218-228

The theoretical and methodological tradition of Czech art history, which includes such personalities as Max Dvorák and Vojtech Birnbaum, was neglected under the communist regime and the situation has not improved since. The main features of the tradition were shaped by the influence of the philosopher Jan Patocka. Recently, Ladislav Kesner has entered the field, bringing a fresh, American-style approach, both in his radical rhetoric and in his main theme - the interaction between the cognitive neurosciences and art historical methods. His line of argumentation has resulted, indirectly, in the questioning of the scientific status of art history, in contrast with the natural sciences. When addressing this subject, the question of what the art historian is actually doing must be answered. This activity can be interpreted on four levels: 1. Sensual perception, primarily sight, informed by the results of neuro-cognitive research and, more importantly, by technological analyses of the material of artworks from earlier epochs. 2. Connoisseurship in a wider sense, creating a network of artworks on the basis of similarity attributable to certain periods, places and persons. This is the exclusive domain of art history, accessible only to those who have undergone initiation at university. It is, however, learned only by following a master, not in an abstract way, i.e. as a craft and not as an academic discipline. 3. Including the artwork in a system of social values, either of the present, or of a past society. In the latter case, art history joins the margins of history proper and has to conform to its 'craft' and method. 4. Writing a text, or, more specifically, preparing an exhibition - an activity which borders on actual artistic expressive forms (installation or performance). The theoretical or methodological approach can be regarded as a constructive matrix pervading all four levels. The core of the entire procedure (see above no. 2) is strikingly non-scientific, i.e. not subjected to independent experimental verification. This derives from the fact that the true object of art history is an individual artwork in its bodily presence and uniqueness. Since the time of the late 18th century founder of scientific art history, J. J. Wincklemann, the object of art history has been reduced to 'style'. The new concept of science, however, enables one to bypass the 'Galilean paradigm' and to admit a scientific object which is bodily unique. (An extensive part of the text is devoted to a brief survey of the developments in the concept of science, which took place during the second half of the 20th century when Czech - and neighboring - intellectual communities were forcibly cut off from the current trends by the repressive political regime.) In this framework, art history is freer and can remain critically open to inspiration from different intellectual currents while not submitting to them. This concerns not only the cognitive neurosciences, but also linguistic semiotics, memetics or the theory of chaos. Biology (eidetic theory, developments in Darwinism) constitutes another extremely intriguing field. The basis of the strong self-confidence of art history (as a wide-ranging project, including visual studies) may lie in the fact that its own proper topics - bodily uniqueness and personal experience - are among the key concepts of the early 21st century.

Refine search results

1 Umění (Art)

1 Bartlova M.

1 2006

Search results

ART HISTORY: WHAT KIND OF SCIENCE?