Historia sztuki w polu metodologii. Aktualne problemy i wyzwania
PDF

Słowa kluczowe

art history
scientific knowledge
philosophy of science
structuralism
methodology
theory

Jak cytować

Czekalski, S. (2023). Historia sztuki w polu metodologii. Aktualne problemy i wyzwania. Artium Quaestiones, 34(34), 293–336. https://doi.org/10.14746/aq.2023.34.10

Liczba wyświetleń: 523


Liczba pobrań: 169

Abstrakt

At the end of the 20th century, the theory of art history shifted from the area of methodology understood as a normative field of the philosophy of science to the area of the social practice of constructing knowledge. The term “art historical methodology” itself became trivialized when its meaning was detached from the horizon of epistemology and became extremely inclusive, encompassing all methods practised in the discipline, with a method being considered to be the use of any theory as a tool of interpretation. As a consequence, the basic problem of scientific methodology, which is the critical assessment of explanatory and interpretive theories due to the value of their justification, is not addressed in the self-reflection of contemporary art history. The retreat from the rigors of methodology was related to the reception of structuralism, initiated by Ernst Gombrich in the book Art and Illusion. Popper’s model of situational logic as a method of historical explanation of works of art was transformed into a structuralist model, referring to constant rules of pictorial representation, symbolization and communication. Michael Fried and Norman Bryson formulated their own theories of invariant rules defining the necessary initial conditions for the formation and reception of pictures, so that individual works could be interpreted in terms of these rules and, as a result, confirm the general theory, which created a vicious circle. Structuralist theories did not function as hypotheses requiring critical testing, but as interpretive codes that served to read each work of art within their own conceptual system. The next step in the process of the reception of structuralism was the development of theories defining general rules that would govern the discursive practice of art history, and the detection of which at the basis of this practice would discredit or invalidate its epistemological dimension. Hayden White’s narrativism was the theory that historical discourse is subject to narrative conventions, not to the laws of logic and the rigors of methodology that serve to limit the pool of alternative explanations or interpretations. This theory was intended to justify the pluralism of equal versions of history as a politically correct idea, appropriate for a “democratic” model of knowledge. Theorists developing White’s theses in the field of art history claimed that the discursive practice of this discipline was not governed by methodological rules but by political motivations (Keith Moxey) or aesthetic principles of artwriting (David Carrier). After the phase of open denial of the dependence of the art history discourse on methodology, the theory of the discipline turned into an analysis of techniques for building this discourse, which no longer included methodological issues, as in James Elkins’ book Our Beautiful, Dry, and Distant Texts. A critical review of theories separating art history from methodology leads to the conclusion that they are untenable. It is impossible to maintain the scientific status of our discipline without respecting the principles of methodology founded in the contemporary philosophy of science.

https://doi.org/10.14746/aq.2023.34.10
PDF

Bibliografia

Adams L.S., The Methodologies of Art. An Introduction, New York 1996

Bätschmann O., Einführung in die kunstgeschichliche Hermeneutik. Die Auslegung von Bildern, Darmstadt 1984

Bätschmann O., Anleitung zur Interpretation: Kunstgeschichtliche Hermeneutik, w: Kunstgeschichte: Eine Einführung, Hrsg. H. Belting, H. Dilly, W. Kemp, W. Säuerlander, M. Warnke, Berlin 1988, s. 191–221

Baxandall M., Patterns of Intention: On the Historical Explanation of Pictures, New Haven and London 1985

Bocheński J.M., Współczesne metody myślenia, Poznań 1992

Bryl M., Suwerenność dyscypliny. Polemiczna historia sztuki od 1970 roku, Poznań 2008

Bryson N., Dyskurs, figura, tłum. M. Bryl, „Artium Quaestiones” 2008, XIX, s. 300–333

Bryson N., Tradition and Desire: From David to Delacroix, New York 1984

Carrier D., Principles of Art History Writing, University Park 1991

Czekalski S., Jak wyjaśnić obraz? Metodologiczne tropy historii sztuki w epoce Ernsta H. Gombricha, Poznań 2022 DOI: https://doi.org/10.14746/amup.9788323240372

Bryson N., Spojrzenie w rozszerzonym polu, tłum. M. Bryl, „Artium Quaestiones” 2008, XIX, s. 281–299

D’Alleva A., Metody i teorie historii sztuki, tłum. E. i J. Jedlińscy, Kraków 2008

Eagleton T., Koniec teorii, tłum. B. Kuźniarz, Warszawa 2012

Elkins J., Art History without Theory, „Critical Inquiry” 1988, nr 2, s. 354–378 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/448442

Elkins J., Our Beautiful, Dry, and Distant Texts: Art History as Writing, New York–London 2000

Feyerabend P., Przeciw metodzie, tłum. S. Wiertlewski, Warszawa 2021

Foucault M., Archeologia wiedzy, tłum. M. Siemek, Warszawa 1977

Fried M., Absorption and Theatricality: Painting and Beholder in the Age of Diderot, Berkeley–Los Angeles–London 1980

Gombrich E.H., Sztuka i złudzenie. O psychologii przedstawiania obrazowego, tłum. J. Zarański, Warszawa 1981

Gombrich E.H., W poszukiwaniu historii kultury, tłum. A. Dębnicki, w: Pojęcia, problemy, metody współczesnej nauki o sztuce, red. J. Białostocki, Warszawa 1976, s. 302–345

Gombrich E.H., The Evidence of Images, w: Interpretation: Theory and Practice, ed. Ch.S. Singleton, Baltimore 1969, s. 35–104

Gombrich E.H., Symbolic Images: Studies in the Art of the Renaissance, London 1972

Gutting G., Michel Foucault’s Archaeology of Scientific Reason, New York 1989 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139172141

Latour B., S. Woolgar, Życie laboratoryjne. Konstruowanie faktów naukowych, przekład zbiorowy, Warszawa 2020

Lyotard J.-F., Kondycja ponowoczesna. Raport o stanie wiedzy, tłum. M. Kowalska, J. Migasiński, Warszawa 1997

Moxey K., The Practice of Theory: Poststructuralism, Cultural Politics, and Art History, Ithaca and London 1994 DOI: https://doi.org/10.7591/9781501729027

Nola R., Rescuing Reason: A Critique of Anti-Rationalist Views of Science and Knowledge, Dordrecht 2003 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0289-9

Popper K.R., Logika odkrycia naukowego, tłum. U. Niklas, Warszawa 1977

Popper K.R., Nędza historycyzmu, red. S. Amsterdamski, Warszawa 1999

Popper K.R., Społeczeństwo otwarte i jego wrogowie, tłum. H. Krahelska, Warszawa 1993

Popper K.R., Droga do wiedzy. Domysły i refutacje, tłum. S. Amsterdamski, Warszawa 1999

Reichenbach H., Experience and Prediction. An Analysis of the Foundations and the Structure of Knowledge, Chicago and London 1961

Rose G., Visual Methodologies. An Introduction to the Interpretation of Visual Materials, London 2001

Tilley N., The Logic of Laboratory Life, „Sociology” 1981, nr 15, s. 117–126 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/003803858101500108

White H., Poetyka pisarstwa historycznego, red. E. Domańska, M. Wilczyński, Kraków 2000

White H., Proza historyczna, red. E. Domańska, Kraków 2009

Woleński J., Dwa pojęcia nauki: metodologiczne i socjologiczne, „Prace Komisji Historii Nauki PAU” 2009, nr 9, s. 163–180

Woleński J., Filozofia nauki a historia nauki, „Prace Komisji Historii Nauki PAU” 2014, nr 13, s. 100