Abstract
The article compares the state of theory in literary studies and the visual arts. While in the one the end of theory is proclaimed for several decades, in second it is systematically neglected as insufficiently scientific. A critique of the existing methods of art history, which are predominantly based on documentation and historiography in the study of artworks is needed. Discipline is demoted to an auxiliary historical science, which results in its vanishing. An example is given of the research of Didi-Huberman, who, by establishing the difference between the visible and the visual, extends the field of study of the visual arts with his theory, thereby prolonging its life and ensuring that the end of art history, which the discipline itself has been questioning for several decades, is avoided. The paper argues for openness and the overcoming of boundaries within two humanities disciplines that have begun to distance themselves from each other and neglect their mutual contributions.
References
Ackerman, J. (1973). Toward a New Social Theory of Art. „New Literary History“, br. 4, 2, str. 315–330.
Alpers, S., Alpers, P. (1972). Ut Pictura Noesis? Criticism in Literary Studies and Art History. „New Literary History“, br. 3, 3, str. 437–458.
Belting, H. (2010). Kraj povijesti umjetnosti? Zagreb: Muzej suvremene umjetnosti.
Białostocki, J. (1986). Povijest umjetnosti i humanističke znanosti. Zagreb: Grafički zavod Hrvatske.
Burzyńska, A., Markowski, M. P. (2009). Književne teorije XX veka. Beograd: Službeni glasnik.
Butler, J., Guillory, J., Thomas, K. (2002). Preface. U: What’s Left of Theory?: New Work on the Politics of Literary Theory. Ur. J. Butler et al. New York, London: Routledge, str.VIII–XII.
Compagnon, A. (2007). Demon teorije. Zagreb: AGM.
Culler, J. (2001). Književna teorija: vrlo kratak uvod. Zagreb: AGM.
Didi-Huberman, G. (2005). Confronting Images: Questioning the Ends of a Certain History of Art. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
Forster, K. (1972). Critical History of Art, or Transfiguration of Values?. „New Literary History“ br. 3, 3, str. 459–470.
Freeland, C. (2001). But is It Art?: an Introduction to Art Theory. Oxford – New York: Oxford University Press.
Groys, B. (2006). Učiniti stvari vidljivima. Zagreb: Muzej suvremene umjet-nosti.
Laude, J., Denomme, R. (1972). On the Analysis of Poems and Paintings. „New Literary History“ br. 3, 3, str. 471–486.
Mciver Lopes, D. (2008). Nobady Needs a Theory of Art. „The Journal of Philosophy“, br. 105, 3, str. 109–127.
McQuillan, M., Macdonald, G., Purves, R., Thomas, S. (2010). The Joy of Theory. U: Post-Theory: New Directions in Criticism. Ur. M. McQuillan et al. Edinburgh: University Press, str. IX–XX.
Passmore, J. (1972). History of Art and History of Literature: A Commentary. „New Literary History“, br. 3, 3, str. 575–587.
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Filip Kučeković
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.