Temptation, Resistance, and Art Objects: On the Lack of Material Theory within Art History before the Material Turn

Main Article Content

Charolotta Krispinsson

Abstrakt

Niccolò di Pietro Gerini's painting “The Temptation of Saint Anthony” (1390-1400) serves as a point of departure for this essay. It depicts Saint Anthony during a lapse of self-control as he attempts to resist an alluring mound of gold. Since the mound is in fact made of genuine gold leaves applied to the painting's surface, it works both as a representation of temptation as well as an object of desire affecting the beholder. 

The aim of this essay is to explore different approaches to materiality before the material turn within the art history discipline by examining two opposing directions within the writing and practice of art history:  the tradition of connoisseurship; and the critique of the fetish within the theoretical apparatus of new art history and visual culture studies of the 1980s and 90s. As an expression of positivism within art history, it is argued that connoisseurship be considered within the context of its empirical practices dealing with objects. What is commonly described as the connoisseur's “taste” or “love for art” would then be just another way to describe the intimate relationship formed between art historians and the very objects under their scrutiny. More than other humanist disciplines, art history is, with the possible exception of archaeology, an object-based discipline. It is empirically anchored in the unruly, deep sea of objects commonly known as the history of art. Still, there has been a lack of in-depth theoretical reflection on the materiality of artworks in the writings of art historians before the material turn. The question however, is not ifthis is so, but rather, why?

In this essay, it is suggested that the art history discipline has been marked by a complicated love-hate relationship with the materiality of which the very objects of study, more often than not, are made of; like Saint Anthony who is both attracted to and repelled by the shapeless mass of gold that Lucifer tempts him with. While connoisseurship represents attraction, resistance to the allure of objects can be traced to the habitual critique of fetishism of the first generations of visual culture studies and new art history. It reflects a negative stance towards objects and the material aspect of artworks, which enhanced a conceived dichotomy between thinking critically and analytically in contrast to managing documents and objects in archives and museum depositories. However, juxtaposing the act of thinking with the practice of manual labour has a long tradition in Western intellectual history. 

Furthermore, it is argued that art history cannot easily be compared to the history of other disciplines because of the simple fact that artworks are typically quite expensive and unique commodities, and as such, they provoke not just aesthetic but also fetishist responses. Thus, this desire to separate art history as a scientific discipline from the fetishism of the art market has had the paradoxical effect of causing art historians to shy away from developing methodologies and theory about materiality as an act of resistance. 

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

Dział
DZIEŁO SZTUKI JAKO RZECZ
Biogram autora

Charolotta Krispinsson, Södertörn University, Stockholm

Doktor, historyczka sztuki, wykłada historię sztuki w Szkole Kultury i Edukacji na Uniwersytecie Södertörn w Sztokholmie. Stopień doktora otrzymała na Uniwersytecie Sztokholmskim w 2016 roku. W latach 2016-17 przebywała na podoktorskim stypendium badawczym w Institut für Kunst- und Bildgeschichte na Uniwersytecie Humboldtów w Berlinie. Zainteresowania Krispinsson dotyczą historiografię sztuki, historiographię potretu, wizualną historię szesnasto i siedemnastowiecznej Europy Północnej a także historii sztuki rozumianej jako historia mediów. 

Ph.D., art historian, assistant professor in Art History at the School of Culture and Education at Södertörn University, Stockholm. She completed her Ph.D. at Stockholm University in 2016 and held a fellowship as a postdoctoral researcher at the Department of Art and Visual History at Humboldt University in Berlin in 2017-2018. Her research interests include art historiography, historiography on portraiture, the visual history of 16th and 17thcentury Northern Europe, and art history considered as media history.   

 

Referencje

  1. Adorno T.W., ”Über den Fetischcharakter in der Musik und die Regression des Hörens”, Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung 1938, 7
  2. Apter E. & W. Pietz (eds.), Fetishism as Cultural Discourse, Ithaca 1993
  3. Barad K.M., Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning, Durham 2007
  4. Bennett J., Vibrant Matter: A Political Ecology of Things, Durham 2010
  5. Bernstein P.L., The Power of Gold: The History of an Obsession, New York 2000
  6. Bird J., M. Mash & T. Putnam (eds.), The Block Reader in Visual Culture, London 1996
  7. Bloom J.J., “Why Painting?”, in: Mapping Markets for Paintings in Europe, 1450–1750, eds. N. De Marchi & H.J. Van Miegroet, Turnhout 2006
  8. Böhme H., Fetishism and Culture. A Different Theory of Modernity, Berlin 2014
  9. Boskovits M., Pittura Fiorentina alla virgilia del Rinascimento 1370–1400, Florence 1975
  10. Bredekamp H., “A Neglected Tradition? Art History as Bildwissenschaft”, Critical Inquiry 2003, 29(3)
  11. Bryson N., M. Holly, & K. Moxey, Visual Culture: Images and Interpretations, Hanover 1994
  12. Buchloh B.H.D., “Conceptual Art 1962−1969: From the Aesthetic of Administration to the Critique of Institutions”, October 1990 (55)
  13. Chaplin S. & J.A. Walker, Visual Culture: An Introduction, Manchester 1997
  14. Connolly W.E., “The ‘New Materialism’ and the Fragility of Things”, Millennium: Journal of International Studies 2013, 41(3)
  15. Daston L. & E. Lunbeck (eds.), Histories of Scientific Observation, Chicago 2011
  16. Daston L. (ed.), Biographies of Scientific Objects, Chicago 2000
  17. Daston L. (ed.), Things that Talk: Object Lessons from Art and Science, New York 2004
  18. Dikovitskaya M., “Major Theoretical Frameworks in Visual Culture”, in: The Handbook of Visual Culture, eds. I. Heywood & B. Sandywell, London & New York 2012
  19. Dikovitskaya M., The Study of the Visual after the Cultural Turn, Cambridge 2005
  20. Eck C. van, Art, Agency and Living Presence. From the Animated Image to the Excessive Object, Leiden 2015
  21. Elkins J., S. Manghani & G. Frank (eds.), Farewell to Visual Studies, Pennsylvania 2015
  22. Evans J. & S. Hall (eds.), Visual Culture.The Reader, London 1999
  23. Felski R., The Limits of Critique, Chicago 2015
  24. Foster H., “Post-Critical”, October 2012, 139
  25. Frank M.B. & D. Adler (eds.), German Art History and Scientific Thought: Beyond Formalism, Farnham 2012
  26. Fried M., “Art and Objecthood”, Artforum 1967, 5(10)
  27. Gell A., Art and Agency: An Anthropological Theory, Oxford 1998
  28. Gibson-Wood C., Studies in the Theory of Connoisseurship from Vasari to Morelli, London 1988
  29. Godfrey T., Conceptual Art, London 1998
  30. Gombrich E., The Story of Art, London 1950
  31. Guerini A., “The Material Turn in the History of Life Science”, Literature Compass 2016, 13
  32. Gumbrecht H.U., Production of Presence. What Meaning Cannot Convey, Stanford 2004
  33. Harris J., The New Art History. A Critical Introduction, London 2001
  34. Heidegger M., Vorträge und Aufsätze, Pfullingen 1954
  35. Holly M., The Melancholy Art, Princeton 2013
  36. Hönes H.C., “Posing Problems: George Kubler’s ‘Prime Objects’“, Journal of Visual Art Practice 2016, 15(2−3)
  37. Iacono A.M., The History and Theory of Fetishism, Basingstoke 2016
  38. Jõekalda K., “What Has Become of the New Art History?”, Journal of Art Historiography 2013, 9
  39. Klonk C. & M. Hatt (eds.), Art History: A Critical Introduction to its Methods, Manchester 2006
  40. Korenic L., “Inside the Discipline, outside the Paradigm: Keeping Track of the New Art History”, Art Libraries Journal 1997
  41. Kubler G., The Shape of Time. Remarks on the History of Things, New Haven 1962
  42. Latour B., “Why Has Critique Run Out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern”, Critical Inquiry 2004, 30
  43. Latour B., Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory, Oxford 2005
  44. Latour B., On the Modern Cult of the Factish Gods, Durham 2010
  45. Lippard L., Six Years: The Dematerialization of the Art Object from 1966 to 1972, London 1973
  46. Mirzoeff N., An Introduction to Visual Culture, Rutledge 1999
  47. Mitchell W.J.T., “Editor’s Introduction: Essays toward a New Art History”, Critical Inquiry 1989, 15(2)
  48. Mitchell W.J.T., Image Science: Iconology, Visual Culture, and Media Aesthetics, Chicago 2015
  49. Mitchell W.J.T., What do Pictures Want? The Lives and Loves of Images, Chicago 2005
  50. Mulvey L., ”Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema”, Screen 1975, 16
  51. Muthesius S., “Towards an ‘exakte Kunstwissenschaft’(?) Part II”, Journal of Art Historiography 2013
  52. Philipp M. & O. Westheider (eds.), Schrecken und Lust: die Versuchung des heiligen Antonius von Hieronymus Bosch bis Max Ernst, München 2008
  53. Pietz W., ”The Problem of the Fetish, I”, RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics 1985, (9)
  54. Pietz W., ”The Problem of the Fetish, II: The Origin of the Fetish“, RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics 1987, (13)
  55. Pietz W., ”The Problem of the Fetish, IIIa: Bosman’s Guinea and the Enlightenment Theory of Fetishism”, RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics 1988, (16)
  56. Rees A.L. & F. Borzello (eds.), The New Art History, London 1986
  57. Salmi M., “Lorenzo Ghiberti e la pittura”, in: Scritt in onore di Lionelli Venturi, I, Rome 1956
  58. Sluijter E.J., “On Brabant Rubbish, Economic Competition, Artistic Rivalry, and the Growth of the Market for Paintings in the First Decades of the Seventeenth-Century”, Journal of Historians of Netherlandish Art 2009, 1(2)
  59. Smith M. (ed.), Visual Culture Studies: Interview with Key Thinkers, London 2008.
  60. Springer A., ”Kunstkenner und Kunsthistoriker” in: idem, Bilder aus der neueren Kunstgeschichte, Bonn 1867
  61. Sturken M. & L. Cartwright, Practices of Looking. An Introduction to Visual Culture, Oxford 2001
  62. Thielemans V., “Beyond Visuality: Review on Materiality and Affect”, Perspective: Actualité en histoire de l’art 2015, (2)
  63. Wedepohl C., ”Bernard Berenson and Aby Warburg: Absolute
  64. Opposites”, in: Bernard Berenson: Formation and Heritage, eds. J. Connors & L.A. Waldman, Florence 2014
  65. Yonan M., “The Suppression of Materiality in Anglo-American Art-Historical Writing”, in: The Challenge of the Object / Die Herausforderung des Objekts. Proceedings of the 33rd Congress of the International Committee of the History of Art (CIHA), Nürnberg, 15−20 July 2012, eds. G.U. Großmann & P. Krutisch, Nuremberg 2014
  66. Yonan M., “Toward a Fusion of Art History and Material Culture Studies”, West 86th: A Journal of Decorative Arts, Design History, and Material Culture 2011, 18(2)