Art History and Wrinting

8/12/2019 Art History and Wrinting

1/19

A RANGE

OF

C

RITI CAL PERSPECTI VES

Writing (and) the History ofArt

Writing

Art

History

PatJ

l

Bnrolsky

Longu.ag< is

lile

a cra1

' all ou t

thcorc:1ical

d i ~ s a t i s f . t c L

we

are ulterly comp

l

acent abom

our

own

bd

writi

ng.

11lc

si tuation

1de5Cribe is not peculiar t.Oan

lustory.

for

it

is

p3n of brwdc:r

Khol:arfy mabise

rocxed

in the

profession

alinlionf>fKholarWipin 1henine1centh

cxmw)

1owtuchwe

are

'T11e

study

of

an and

litt'ramrc

. nfhi.story ;md o thcr

relat

cd

dixiplines, carne

10

tx

3ccn

~ a ki

nd of

..

K

ience:

and

although

wc havc moved bt"yond a

mi

s

guid

ed

co

n

p

tion

of

hi

storica.l e s .

wc

l1av

e

uut

s

lripped our

sc

lvc.:s

of' iu

bagg dge-

that

of

writing in

pedantic,

oftcm

iHi lringc:u t, vverty analyc. and 1echn ical p1'0se. [ven hist

ori

an l . 10 whom art historians are IC1:ucd . after all art

history

i i

a fonn

of

history, ha''C

ack.

nowlc:dgccJ a problem

0\'C'tlook

ed by thdr

cousins.

thc art his.torians. that

of

"nowr3l\'e,"

or

ptot:

of

ha,ing

a

good

.scor

to

tdL

Hlstori

ans

bcgiln nOt

so manr

years

~ g o co

miss

e l ~ stOtJ in their

NE


2/19

t.tchni c e ; ~ d n r e s .

lost

in ou

r

own habits of

mi

nd.

t.h:H

wc do not

rdlcct

much

upon

thc simp le fact thar. as professional

art

historians we

have

cu1 oursdves

off from che imaginativc traditlon

of

writing

about

art that cxrends from Philostratus to Oame,

Vasari,

Bellori,

Oi

dero1,

and

\r\'ind:.clmann. Wc rc.ad such

writers for historic:al reasons ro set: what we r:night l

cam

about

paSt

thouglll,

bur it docs n.o1 oct l l f to us to consider

what we migbt lcaro from thcsc:: exC'mpJary authors as

wri1ers. Thei.r

t r ; ; ~ d i l i < . m

d.

id

not die. howC'ver;

v re

mere

ly

remo\'ed ourselves liom it. f reruaiocd alivc in the nine

t.eenrh

cenwry in

t

hc writi

ngs

of Gocrhe

.

Gautier.

Taine

,

Hazliu,

Rus kin. and Pa tcr. and itsmvives in ourown

century

.

for cxa.mplc. in thc work of Proust, Claudel.

and Ortega.

We

some

times

study

thcse writcrs for what they tell us about

changing tas

te

or anitudcs. Wc scek 10 distancc oursctvcs,

however. lhnn their ..poctry, from thcir ..

mpress

ionism,

dong

so

al a

price,

f()rwc cut u r s c t v ~ off from

rKh ve.ns

of

nana,e

and

metaphor. from thc tools

of\'ivid

writing. 'I1le

hnaginati

ve tr

desperale

auernpt

10 defe.nd oneself r.r:unps

one's

very

style. Knowing that all gene

ra

liza ti

on

s a

re

vulnerable. scbol

a1

S

wll

often

resst ruaki

ng them. but

al

a pri


3/19

wd l ima

gine

essays

on

lhe arts of Africa. Raphael, Berthe

Morist, PreCt)lumbian scu lp lure,

and

any number ofother

an-hislOkat

subjecu

written with the samc swiftness.sparklc.

and gossamcrlike prose that wc find in Calvino by contrast to

plodding

argumems we ordinar ily make

in

our u-adion -

y

grave scholarl)' disut c

onc

ision. vivacity, and metaphot,

:lbout cele

brating

l

he joys

of art and

it

s hstory

in

a poclic

prose

that itself gvcs plcasurc.-. As Catvino says: 1

thin

k

pleasure

is

a scrious roattcr.

Many or the qualitics find

in

Nabokov and

Ca

J ..no and

in

ou r finest. essayisrs abound

in one

of the most magical

bo o

ks

on

art

and

its histol')' to

appear

in ycars. Charles

Simit's Dinu:..Stcrrt

Alchtmy.

a bricf proscpocm or series of

prose

poems th

at

not

only C okes

th

e

:m and

l

if

t:

of

j oseph

ComciJ but

i.s

also a m.edi tation on artisllc imagina

don. 1have

rcad

slim

o

l

ume

mar)y times.

a1

\d each tme

it has mctamorphosed its.elf into anothcr,

quite

diffcrcn1

bt)Ok. Rarely have

1

encoumered a discussion

so

suggcstive

of

what

art

is and does to us. Rc-ad sl

O WIy

. Simics book will yield

up many sccrct..s. Were

1 m

teadt a course on art theory or

mcbc.lds 1 would

sm e

ly assign Dinu

.Stort

Alchtmy to my

ostudenrs. No matter that it does

not pre

t

cnd

to oAer a kt:)' to

an

based

on phi

Josophy, l i n g u s t i ~

Skov, and Borges. evcn though th

ey

do n

ot

speak of

theory as such or use a

tcchni

cal

vo

cabulary.

1

would

1emind thcm rh;u. after aH. theo)' (for all our academic

w

indow

d ressit)g} is. iu the root sensc of he word, h

ow

one

sees.

and

1would encourage student.s to find a

n ~ o u a g t

precise

31)d

evoca

ti e as

possible 10 des,Tibt what

the:y see.

1

wou

1d

rc.-mind

thcm

that thcy are writers.

and 1

\\ u ld

encouragc thc:m to devclop

in

t.hci.r prose their own sensibili-

t

it'S

, their Q\ o'n style, urging that th

ere

are potemaiJy far

more w-tys ofwriring abou t

art

than they mighl reali2e. sorne

of which have yet to be envisioned or invented. would

encourage th

em

to rcsist the casy

tru

ths''

of

c;:urrent ata NEX

demic fashion

and

rcmind

them that they be long lO

:

-

tradit.ioo

of

wri ljng ab()ut

arL

f

ar

broadel'

and deeper than

the par

ch

ialty pr ofessionallzed study ofan hlstory suggests.

1

would have th em realize th

at ahhough

J t le:ast on.c di stin

guished

:w::ho

l

ar

has writtcn what is calk-d the' story of art,

th


4/19

Artcriticism-writing, Arthistory

writing,

and

Artwriting

David Can'ier

speak of anc.riticism-writlng and anhistory-wr

it

ing to em

,.,hasize d iff

erenccs b.'0

sa

mp lcs ofartwriting:

1977: a c;ollcgc sophomore. n.ai,

e

. addin

,

M J ~ n

.. l

99 0

,

87

.

7. L. S d d d J a ~ E v.tJ

;t.I MMIlfini

Pot1Y

(Iit

:

S111rid o{

an lrmr, \.:.ubridgt-.

1993.225.


5/19

\o\

hik rt'laining .somcthing n :c:ogni.1...able from

e ~ e r e .

Writingon Mstorical wbjecu in thc ty

lssruJ.

No doubt

tbis f(:h

ne


6/19

form

un_e.s.s lbCTc

wcrc a fch

Kl\.SC: th :&

l

majur ne1\" kind'

of

am-.-orb wc:.rc:.

bOng

a d ~

Writing

by

crics is data lr hi.storia1

u, who

are expected

to

surnmarizt: earlier oomrneruaJ)' bt.f l) l't pre.senng h ~ . i

i t w : r

r e t a . t i c

For the histor

ia

n, t

radition

ca

nn ot bu

t

e

ig

ht;

ew:n

L ea rl

ie

r

co mmenl.a tors be ju

d

ged enr

ely

ronglc.

ad

ed . thc ne cd to p

rc

sent dwir

da

n

s gi\rc-s Lhc

hi s1orian's

argu

m

enta

slo

w

cr rh

)lhm

thMI Ihc t:

ri tic'5

ana ly

. lis

.

TI1ls

prot.-edure ten

ds to

ere:.te

an e.

fl'c&:

l

ak.in

w

eclec;.

eism in

painng

.

lf

a

paim

i

og

a Iludes 10 Waucau. Cbardjn,

and

Oavid.

it

hard

for- tlle'

t ' T to K't'

that

work as

ltan-SC'cnding ils refcrencc:s;

$0, < ~ n a l o g o u s l y .

ifyour texl rnus1

grapple

witlt the

prior m ~ n l a l

by

An1ta B

ro o

kner-. T .J.

Clark. a

nd

m a C."row,

then

t1s difficult

to

establi.sh

your

own voicc. Much ArtfiYtUtn

writing ha

1 almo5t no footnotcs.

for :1

critic

it .s

u.

ffi

ces

10

say,

1 lik

c (Qr

di)like) su

ch

-aml

lillt h

;

and lo give r

easo

ns wh il 'Opct c. fhubn.l

up

-

and "muS>rUm

"'tiUbrt)" Ccknot

e-

thc:prafessionand iu r ; t ~ C t i - t i o n n - .

inan

muwums.. Jdo

c.h'l l l l ( ' f ~ rot tbc- ~ 1 1 : '

ol

~ - - n ' l i e - n c . ~ t and w.chuc ..WUnJ to r m ~

hrlftllONC

.1101

...tf

u..ward

mwot 'Umt-

~

.a "'

hok.

Muxum U ~ h

oiMowtt a h:IJhh- ~ bf)ond

lhc

K

olth

n.Q,. ,

lholih

a(lnoookdgll:'

lhat

rnudt

ma t

t'

rW

ot

~ W a i l . n l n u t

rn

tht

e

:ur,nded

((

WHClt.l of "ar t"

i i


7/19

401 .\ In 81)L

'r i

S B U t 1996 \ ' () L

t)

M f. L

XX V

II I N l) M BEk 3

detach iuoelf from its grandchild in order LO develop ftu'lher

as a

qu

ite d is

Lin

ct im ellec tua l an d schola.rly

p

actice:

Th

aL

practice is in

esse

nce critica] (in a

more direct

sense

th a

n t.hat

in which a r1

hi

stOI) ' is c;;rit i


8/19

2

Const.;mtin Br.mcusi,Haud ofMat'kmoiulle

Pogany, 1920,

yeU

ow

marble. Cam

br

idge::, Mas.s., Fogg Art Museum,

Har

vcud

Uni

ve

rsit)' Art Muse\.tms,

Gi

ft o

fM r

. and Mrs.

~ a x

Wassennan,

1964.1 JO(ph oto: 1-Iarvard

University Art Museums)

scholar (both

as

a ftmcliooal, social responsibility

and

as a

way of furLh

ering scholarship for d i

ff1.1sion

by othcr means),

and

such pl'esent

at

i

on can

lcgitim :nely be

in

fonned by

non-al'thistorical

conccrns-even

by concerns am ipathetic

to

art

history

t h

ose

concenu

wi ll leg

itimately a lso

inform

thc cxec

ulion

of

J'es

pon

sibililies

that

havc

an ar t

-hi

:sto

rical

c ~ p c x t i : ~ e ~ :

Jntt>r/

diM"

iplin:ui t

y."'

Al"t

Brdlt6n

LXl\VIt, no .

4. 1

19

5.

M4-52.

6.

C

he Oill(lt.

"

i l .e

Euigtn ofThi.ugs."

HfV(Jrtl

Ullwn JiiJ

A;t

~ t u i I J

81 CUttil

. 11. no. 2, 5 ~


9/19

eme11an the possibllty of a future in. which professional

legitimaton in Lhe Un

iLc

d St aLcs is conf

erred

by a plurality of

inslitutions.

as

is t

hc

case clscwherc. r.u her t

han

almost

exclu .s

io

e:l)' by

un

i..,ers ilies.

1

In pank ula1.

we:

may h'l\t w

1

ecogn

ize more formaJiy than a t presem thm the id

ea

l

reparati

on

for a carc-er as a mu

sc-

um scholar may

indu

de,

lH ought not lO be

confinc

d ro

, lcarn

i

ng

to writc an hi:swry

i.n

lhe

f()n:n

ofa

Ph.

O.

di

.sse

n at

.i

on

(O

r a ny

c>

th

er

f

()

nn

fi

)r

thal

mauer

).

1 invted a

comparlson between

uni,ersi

lie.s

and art muse

ums as institutions and as

si

tes of scho la

rs

hip at thc outset.

bm 1sub mit that th is is not rea l.ly 10 cor.np

arc

likc with like

when we


10/19

Inte

ntion(

s)

j

oseph

K

osulh

ntntion

(Artists)

lntcnti(.ln is

the

f()rw:ird- J

eaning )C)C)

k

Of

Lhings. h is

ll()

l

3

ec

on s

tiruted hh tcwical state of

mnd.

then.

but

a relation

ber\leen the object and its circumstances.- Michael Bax

andaJII

When

an historians,

even

the b

es

t

of them,

write about

intemion

th

ere seems to be a presumption that you have two

things: thc work of an and the artisl's intcntions. As ;m anis1

1 find th.is,

pe

rh

aps

more

than

any o tJu;:r single thing, the

m ~ j O J di..i

sio

n nt)w between how al'lists understand thelr

work

and

how art historians see

them

. While

the

primacy of

the ob ect has long been

quc

.stioned

by

anists, it remains the

basi_s for muc::h of the a.rt-his10rka l en tcr p risc.

This

differ

ente

in

t

he

t:wo

di

S


11/19

408

A k"l' tiU t

Lt

n N SI .P"ftM

I

.

I 1996 VO

LU

M E

LXXV

I

NU

Mb t l :

doubt her assessmem. btu read ing her lener 1 feh again the

distance bctwccn tbc an histori:;m's app roach ;md mine.

What this suggcsts is t

ha

t thc art-hist.orica l

pm


12/19

1989

m Vienna and Brussels. 1

made the

foUowing st.ale

ment:

Onc

qucition rema ins unsaid: what is 1 i ~ 1ext? 'fis text

uwcs i1s ex isH:nc:e

to

the

par

c

nlhcscs ot'

my

practice asan

aJ'I:.t. 111is

tex

t p e a k . . ~ frum tlmt and last. \\'hile

ph ilosop

h)' would

want

to

spca

k of

the

wo

dd, it

would

n

ccd

to

sp

c:-.

k of

ar

t

a.s

part of thm,

ir

o

nl

)' 10

deny

il.

That

wh

ic:

h pc:rmi ts :u t

1() be

. t ~ c c n r

>a

n of

th

c world

also

nominales

tt

as

an

e,em ln social and cu hu r.al spacc. No

maucr

" 'h

at anual fonn

the

acl\'it)'

of

art

t a k . ~ ,

j(.j history

gi\'C' i ta

concrete pr('S('ncc. Framed by

suc:h

a prese:n

t t

Lhen. t h i ~

h

eory

i.s eng-

.

ged

; u p ~ a n ora

pnctKc.

Such

lhcory

1'11 call primary. SondaJ)' thcory (by ohi

s 1

refcr

o

ar t-hi5totical and

critica]

writingJ may be no

e s ~

u.sefid (in

m

any

c rtscs,

more

u.scful ) but thc

po i

n1

l

'm

st

rtlsing is

tha

il

lm

s a d

if

f:h11il

1g3

;

was:

a produc


13/19

410 \MT

fi

V LI .f :T IN Str

Mt

i i :M 1990 VOI.LIM

f

LXX.,.

t 3

3 KOS\

lt

h.

l

u PlJ ofJu U m n ~ U i r u W k . Brookl) ll Mu

se

um, 199

4 K

osuth

, Pnss lgen -Werk DQCu

mnda

Flnerie , 1

992

. frorn Documenla IX. Kssel: black r

oo

mllefl white

room

/ righl side


14/19

fr's a da.ngerous rhoment

fo

r

a1

tists. Thlh ways seen1s, a t t.his receivng end.

Jik

e an

ex

tremely

unjusr.

and

e'Ven cori'Upl, de \'elopruem. 1always

1.h

ought that

cri tics, as journalsts. cou ld dscuss

the

meaning

of

an artist' s

present production with the public in wa)'S that indcaLed

thatt

hc cri

ti

cs cit

hcr

got

it

or

didn' t (and

an

ists could eithcr

dcal with t.hat or n01

.) The

assu.roption

was

t.hat, in thc long

n.m and

aftcr h


15/19

record.

1

2 f h a t rttord

i.s.,

howC\

cr. nothi

ng

mrt)\

in

g

th

a L

t.h

e

coutents of th

c w

ritin

g sys1em

"'-

en

p r i m a r i ~

historica1.

1

Sbe

td

entrficd men and "

o

men b

oc

h b) heir gl

yphk

namcs

and

thcir portraits.

and

she pbced their

actKms in a

chronology

ac.xurate

to the da

y.

Othcr

Mayani.\ls.

indudi

ng


16/19

Ol.f

SeL. followcd hcr lcad a nd began to recover the dynastic

hist

or

ies ofindividoa l sitcs.

Ouring the early years, 1wor\:.cd with a grntexl. b

ut

al

s.o

included par.tllel and

often

com

pl

emen

tary i.

nfonn

ation

in

writtcn lcx

ts.

.

In

a smal.l

per

c;c

ntage of x a m p l c ~ . Maya n j ~ I S rd ied on (mly pic torial

or o

nl

y ' 'Titten infimna t l . ~ h - c )-tud

y

of

ltyl

t>

,

,(

Stwly 11j'

(:Lcu.rir.

M t ~ J t l Stul/'(uu, Cltrru:gk lnc.cjtuioo

I { W a ~ h i g t o n

nc)

,

't93, Washin_g

tn.

0 .(: ., 1950. that

is

still uw:d toda\').

Atldth

er ci1M:al

co

mrlbutic>n camt- in

1952 f r . : ~ m

th

e Ru.sliOiau schobr Yuri K n

ttrDl>C)V.

wh( di.ic("l'c;red thc $P

mpkx. d : . r a .

that

c:cmn

ced

fr>m

thi$

cbte

int''

date,

or th q

ccM..Id :.nch(lr cvem$

t(>

c nd1. Thts s)'Stem crea1ed a hist>l}' in

....

hk h

th

e

majorit) )f e m s c-..tn tw: da1ed tt> a pr

t:

ci)C

Lw t":

nty-fou r-11


17/19

1ypc:

an

d wm

rds ar1d

modem

elhnog

taphies

can

also

in f

orm andcnt mcanings,

i f thc

Otlnection.s are carefully

madc

.

As

thc Maya produccd objecl5, cspt"C


18/19

assertion

in

the ancient records. Freidel's knowledgc ofsocial

suucture. statc fonn;ujon, and ethnographic analogy pL')'ed

a crucial role in

de

vclopi

ng

our i.uer

pt

etations.

Wc ;u-

t

etnpted

to detect social

inte

ntion a nd the

strateg

ies

of

the

arious

part

i

c

pants in grappling with the problems faced by

1e Maya

in

each inddcnt. In h.indsight, we were wrong in

.....,me of the detail,

but

gencra l.

f

cc:urect

in

the main trajee

tory

of

hi

s tory as

wc

rcxonstruct

cd

iL

Other scholars havc con

t1ued w

build orl

th

is

firs

t

a

uempt

at hs1ory. changing

and

adapling itto newded

ph

er

mcnts a.nd continuing excdvations. In fact, 1his has

bcen

onc

of the great l

css.

in

Israel.

Pe

ople

o n a ll sides of1he political debates in Cen1ral America

use percep1ions

of

the

Pre-Colurnbian past

to

supprt th

eir

positions.


19/19

In

the summerof

1995. an incide

nt

oca1rrcd

in

GuatcruaJa

t h l

brought

homc 10

me

thc im porta

n

te of

1he-s(:

h.

i

stori c::s

to

the

Maya

commun ity.

My

fricnd Nikolai

Grube had

ana

n

ged

fi)r a grc:mp of Cemtan politid a ns and businessmen to

meet

wirh Ma)'3 leaders

in order 1 discuss

how fxs

t

hdp 1he

l aya communitics.

Onc

of those leader;s,

an

academic

.JCcializing

in

mass t:ommunicati

on

and

education,

told

rhe

vi

sit

in

g

Gernta

ns

t

ha

t ne

of

the

biggesl problems f

or

the

Maya is how to

mo,

e

in t

o

rhe

t\ 'Cnt)'first

century

as

panjd

pants

in

rhe

world cuhur

Documents

Art History and Wrinting