Słowa kluczowe
the material turn
art historiography
connoisseurship
visual culture studies
new art history
fetishism
Jak cytować
Liczba wyświetleń: 649
Liczba pobrań: 267
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.
Bibliografia
Adorno T.W., ”Über den Fetischcharakter in der Musik und die Regression des Hörens”, Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung 1938, 7
Apter E. & W. Pietz (eds.), Fetishism as Cultural Discourse, Ithaca 1993
Barad K.M., Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning, Durham 2007
Bennett J., Vibrant Matter: A Political Ecology of Things, Durham 2010
Bernstein P.L., The Power of Gold: The History of an Obsession, New York 2000
Bird J., M. Mash & T. Putnam (eds.), The Block Reader in Visual Culture, London 1996
Bloom J.J., “Why Painting?”, in: Mapping Markets for Paintings in Europe, 1450–1750, eds. N. De Marchi & H.J. Van Miegroet, Turnhout 2006
Böhme H., Fetishism and Culture. A Different Theory of Modernity, Berlin 2014
Boskovits M., Pittura Fiorentina alla virgilia del Rinascimento 1370–1400, Florence 1975
Bredekamp H., “A Neglected Tradition? Art History as Bildwissenschaft”, Critical Inquiry 2003, 29(3)
Bryson N., M. Holly, & K. Moxey, Visual Culture: Images and Interpretations, Hanover 1994
Buchloh B.H.D., “Conceptual Art 1962−1969: From the Aesthetic of Administration to the Critique of Institutions”, October 1990 (55)
Chaplin S. & J.A. Walker, Visual Culture: An Introduction, Manchester 1997
Connolly W.E., “The ‘New Materialism’ and the Fragility of Things”, Millennium: Journal of International Studies 2013, 41(3)
Daston L. & E. Lunbeck (eds.), Histories of Scientific Observation, Chicago 2011
Daston L. (ed.), Biographies of Scientific Objects, Chicago 2000
Daston L. (ed.), Things that Talk: Object Lessons from Art and Science, New York 2004
Dikovitskaya M., “Major Theoretical Frameworks in Visual Culture”, in: The Handbook of Visual Culture, eds. I. Heywood & B. Sandywell, London & New York 2012
Dikovitskaya M., The Study of the Visual after the Cultural Turn, Cambridge 2005
Eck C. van, Art, Agency and Living Presence. From the Animated Image to the Excessive Object, Leiden 2015
Elkins J., S. Manghani & G. Frank (eds.), Farewell to Visual Studies, Pennsylvania 2015
Evans J. & S. Hall (eds.), Visual Culture.The Reader, London 1999
Felski R., The Limits of Critique, Chicago 2015
Foster H., “Post-Critical”, October 2012, 139
Frank M.B. & D. Adler (eds.), German Art History and Scientific Thought: Beyond Formalism, Farnham 2012
Fried M., “Art and Objecthood”, Artforum 1967, 5(10)
Gell A., Art and Agency: An Anthropological Theory, Oxford 1998
Gibson-Wood C., Studies in the Theory of Connoisseurship from Vasari to Morelli, London 1988
Godfrey T., Conceptual Art, London 1998
Gombrich E., The Story of Art, London 1950
Guerini A., “The Material Turn in the History of Life Science”, Literature Compass 2016, 13
Gumbrecht H.U., Production of Presence. What Meaning Cannot Convey, Stanford 2004
Harris J., The New Art History. A Critical Introduction, London 2001
Heidegger M., Vorträge und Aufsätze, Pfullingen 1954
Holly M., The Melancholy Art, Princeton 2013
Hönes H.C., “Posing Problems: George Kubler’s ‘Prime Objects’“, Journal of Visual Art Practice 2016, 15(2−3)
Iacono A.M., The History and Theory of Fetishism, Basingstoke 2016
Jõekalda K., “What Has Become of the New Art History?”, Journal of Art Historiography 2013, 9
Klonk C. & M. Hatt (eds.), Art History: A Critical Introduction to its Methods, Manchester 2006
Korenic L., “Inside the Discipline, outside the Paradigm: Keeping Track of the New Art History”, Art Libraries Journal 1997
Kubler G., The Shape of Time. Remarks on the History of Things, New Haven 1962
Latour B., “Why Has Critique Run Out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern”, Critical Inquiry 2004, 30
Latour B., Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory, Oxford 2005
Latour B., On the Modern Cult of the Factish Gods, Durham 2010
Lippard L., Six Years: The Dematerialization of the Art Object from 1966 to 1972, London 1973
Mirzoeff N., An Introduction to Visual Culture, Rutledge 1999
Mitchell W.J.T., “Editor’s Introduction: Essays toward a New Art History”, Critical Inquiry 1989, 15(2)
Mitchell W.J.T., Image Science: Iconology, Visual Culture, and Media Aesthetics, Chicago 2015
Mitchell W.J.T., What do Pictures Want? The Lives and Loves of Images, Chicago 2005
Mulvey L., ”Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema”, Screen 1975, 16
Muthesius S., “Towards an ‘exakte Kunstwissenschaft’(?) Part II”, Journal of Art Historiography 2013
Philipp M. & O. Westheider (eds.), Schrecken und Lust: die Versuchung des heiligen Antonius von Hieronymus Bosch bis Max Ernst, München 2008
Pietz W., ”The Problem of the Fetish, I”, RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics 1985, (9)
Pietz W., ”The Problem of the Fetish, II: The Origin of the Fetish“, RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics 1987, (13)
Pietz W., ”The Problem of the Fetish, IIIa: Bosman’s Guinea and the Enlightenment Theory of Fetishism”, RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics 1988, (16)
Rees A.L. & F. Borzello (eds.), The New Art History, London 1986
Salmi M., “Lorenzo Ghiberti e la pittura”, in: Scritt in onore di Lionelli Venturi, I, Rome 1956
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)
Smith M. (ed.), Visual Culture Studies: Interview with Key Thinkers, London 2008.
Springer A., ”Kunstkenner und Kunsthistoriker” in: idem, Bilder aus der neueren Kunstgeschichte, Bonn 1867
Sturken M. & L. Cartwright, Practices of Looking. An Introduction to Visual Culture, Oxford 2001
Thielemans V., “Beyond Visuality: Review on Materiality and Affect”, Perspective: Actualité en histoire de l’art 2015, (2)
Wedepohl C., ”Bernard Berenson and Aby Warburg: Absolute
Opposites”, in: Bernard Berenson: Formation and Heritage, eds. J. Connors & L.A. Waldman, Florence 2014
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
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)
Licencja
Prawo autorskie regulowane jest oświadczeniem autora przygotowanym przez Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM a od nr XXVIII także umową licencyjną na publikację online zawartą pomiędzy Autorem i Uniwersytetem im. Adama Mickiewicza. Autorzy ponoszą odpowiedzialność za oryginalność zamieszczanego materiału tekstowego oraz regulację praw autorskich dotyczących materiałów ilustracyjnych. W przypadku, gdy materiały pochodzą od redakcji - odpowiedzialność ponosi redakcja czasopisma.
Ten utwór dostepny jest na licencji Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa - Użycie niekomercyjne - Bez utworów zależnych 4.0 Międzynarodowe.