Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 2

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  VIENNA SCHOOL
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
ARS
|
2007
|
vol. 40
|
issue 2
145-156
EN
The paper is devoted to transformation of Riegl's, Dvorak's and Schlosser's heritage of methodology in the 1930s. At the same time the pupils of Vienna school of art history Hans Sedlmayr, K. M. Swoboda and Dagobert Frey declared a 'new tasks' of art historiography under an influence of new political situation near closed with the ideology of Nazis. They intentionally attempted to harmonize the diachronic approach to the history of art with the synchronic one, in identification of collective vehicle of evolution of art history and translated focus at systematic research into art historical constants such as geography, territory on one hand and ethnic, nationalism and race on the other hand. These pupils of Vienna school occupied the head posts in the most important universities in Vienna, Prague and Breslau. They believed that a 'new tasks'VIENNA SCHOOL, art history, IDEOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS of art history were Riegl's and Dvorak's impersonalitionism harmonised with Schlosser's message of inductionism. Connection of metaphysical determinism of art history with ideology of the geographical and ethnic constants was sophisticated instrument of symbolical legitimization of an expansionist hegemonism. Each of them researched the problem of the relations between knowledge and power particularly. Three cases of Hans Sedlmayr, K. M. Swoboda and Dagobert Frey represented the different variants of the self-imposed ideological subservience of art history. They showed that theory and practice, words and deeds, knowledge and behaviour need not always be in harmony, not even in science. The article is concluded with a question to what measure present attempts to revive geography of art are free of all ideological implications.
EN
The first half of the study shows the depth of the kinship between the problem understanding of art historicity in W. Benjamin and a significant representative of the Viennese school of art history, A. Riegl; the key notion here is 'Kunstwollen', a notion adopted from Riegl, which in the time perspective includes the dynamics of historical metamorphoses of art depending on its perception (which is, apart from social determination, other explicit postulate i.a. also in Benjamin's essay on the reproducibility of the work of art). At the same time, since 1925, it is possible, within Benjamin's reading of Riegl, to disclose also moments of over-interpretation (for example introducing the notion of a crisis, or a decline into the concept of developmentality). The deepening of art historicity in Benjamin heads, in the following parts of the author's study, further - similarly as in M. Dvorak - to radicalization in the sense of transformations of his essence. At the same time, the notion on the history-formation of art corresponds with the opinions of Benedetto Croce, and his Viennese followers, Julius von Schlosser and Hans Sedlmeyr. It is possible, from the perspective of the Vienna school, to consider also Benjamin's key notion of 'aura', to which to a large extent Riegl's notion of 'Alterswert' corresponds, whereas the background of Benjaminian art history as a history of a loss of the aura creates Hegelian prophecy about the end of art. The depth of historicity, which is shown in Benjamin's perception of the art metamorphoses in the course of time, is at the same time a sign of a historical pluralism, adopted from the Vienna school.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.