reflections on art history and sociology of art

5

Click here to load reader

Upload: hanna-deinhard

Post on 21-Jan-2017

216 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Reflections on Art History and Sociology of Art

Reflections on Art History and Sociology of ArtAuthor(s): Hanna DeinhardSource: Art Journal, Vol. 35, No. 1 (Autumn, 1975), pp. 29-32Published by: College Art AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/775839 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 05:30

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

College Art Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Art Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.76 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 05:30:25 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 2: Reflections on Art History and Sociology of Art

Reflections on Art History and

Sociology of Art

HANNA DEINHARD

In 1960, the last lines of an editorial in the (London) Times Literary Supplement of May 26 read: "There ought to be a sociology of art. At present there is not." Seven years later Vytautas Kavolis noted that "despite its still minisculus number of adherents, sociology of art is currently one of the most rapidly expanding sociological specializations."' Yet in 1970 Gerhard Grohs pointed out that particularly sociology of the visual arts-in contradistinction to that of literature, music, and the mass media-receives at best a "stepmotherly treatment" in current sociological encyclopedias and text- boo ks.2

If such is the situation in the field of sociology itself, nobody should be surprised to see that art history, in its turn, hardly ever bothers to make use of, or even to mention, existing studies in the sociology of fine arts.3 And yet, this attitude of art historians somehow does not seem to make sense.

For however different the methods and specific scholarly goals of art historians and sociologists may be, they undeniably share a common ground: both deal with such concrete entities as works of art-changing in the course of time-and with people who make them, buy and sell, destroy, enjoy, or dislike them; and both use such complex, highly abstract, and ill-defined concepts as style, influence, taste, tradition, etc.

Furthermore, the sociologists of art depend for their research on the material prepared, namely dated, classified, authenticated, etc., by art historians,4 while the latter constantly deal with religious, economic, technical, political, social factors in order to determine as far and as precisely as possible all the elements that may have played a role in shaping the particular aspect and meaning of the art object.5

At first sight, therefore, the major difference between sociologists and art historians seems to lie in the fact that the art historians concentrate on the individual work of art (or the oeuvre of a single artist), while the sociologists, deliberately

disregarding the individual work, concentrate rather on situating it within the much wider frame of "institutions" (of which art itself is one), "customs," "mores," "roles," "communication processes," etc. (see note 4).

If this be the case, art history and sociology of art would not only be complementary to each other but, indeed, needful of each other. Why then is their seemingly logical alliance belied by the actual state of affairs?

Specialization and its offspring, overspecialization, is cer- tainly one of the main stumbling blocks on the road to a highly desirable collaboration between the two disciplines. However, it is not specialization as such-bad as it is-that threatens the arrival at this goal. The main difficulty stems actually from the implicit or avowed theoretical assumptions which underlie and characterize the procedures of the majority of specialized scholars. For the only type of knowledge acceptable to them seems to be that modeled on the methods of the natural sciences, namely the gathering of "factual" material which can be tested empirically. (In the history of art this has led to a pronounced preference for "documentary" data.) This aspiration to achieve the objectivity of the natural sciences not only brought about a fetishism of "facts" but also caused the almost complete separation between (a few) theorists and (a majority of) empiricists. Likewise it led to abandonment of all value judgments as subjective hindrances to objectivity. Kroeber has rightly reminded us that nothing prevents the objective description of subjectively held values and that, furthermore, "values are too integral in culture to be left out of consideration."6 Manifestly this also applies to the study of art.

It would exceed the limits of this paper to discuss in detail why the concept of objectivity modeled on that of the natural sciences cannot be mechanically transferred to historical- interpretive humanistic disciplines such as art history and social science.7 It can be shown, however, that the unqualified acceptance of the value-free "scientific" model has not helped

FALL 1975 29

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.76 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 05:30:25 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 3: Reflections on Art History and Sociology of Art

its adherents to achieve the basic goal of all serious scholarship, namely to explain the carefully observed facts and phenomena.8 This may sound strange, as the material facts and circumstances accompanying the genesis of works of art-the when, where, what, by whom, for whom-have never before been so exhaustively scrutinized. However, as Focillon points out, the character sui generis of every work of art transcends its genesis and cannot be explained by it: "The most attentive study of the most homogeneous milieu, of the most closely woven circumstances will not serve to give us the design of the towers of Laon."9

On the other hand, the question is justified as to whether the splendid abundance of factual material which distinguishes modern art historical research has really led to deepening our understanding of art in history, of the social dimension of art as a whole, or of each work of art as a social fact. Generally speaking, the answer is negative.

Empiricism, separated from theory, appears to have turned from a useful methodological tool into an ogre devouring its own children. The frame of reference to which the factual analysis is addressed and which alone makes it meaningful, is frequently lost sight of in the emphasis on data gathering. Moreover, as specialized research breeds more of the same the outcome is more likely to lead to a confirmation of Panofsky's Parkinson law on the multiplication and diminishing returns of specialized scholarship' than to an elucidation of art in the historical process. This is demonstrable by a simple fact: the number of scholarly art historical works presenting a comprehensive study of any given period is steadily decreas- ing.'

1

This, of course, leaves the sociologist of art in something of a quandry: if he does not happen to be an art historian himself, he is bereft of the means to gather the requisite information save for encyclopedia or "concise" histories. Moreover, it is an unrealistic-though still widely held-idea that he could accomplish his task without a thorough understanding of artistic qualities. However, given the present art-historical doctrine of value-free description, even existing comprehensive works will not provide him with any insights concerning qualitative differences in art.

On the other hand, the competent art historian is usually not an expert in the specifics of sociology. Close collaboration between the one and the other is therefore as necessary as it is desirable. For even topics of a purely sociological character such as studies of the art market, artists' organizations, etc., must be seen in terms of their effect on the individual works in order to be meaningful to a sociology of art. 2 Where such a relation cannot be established-as is manifestly the case with sociological investigations of the social origins of artists-their data are devoid of value for a sociology of art although the statistics gathered may be useful in other sociological areas.

In short, only those studies are relevant to a sociology of art whose findings are simultaneously applicable to the specific work of art and the sociocultural, religious, political frame- work within which it appears. Viewed thus, the solution of the problem of style becomes one of the most crucial tasks of a sociology of art. It is also the task which only the collaboration between art historians and sociologists can hope to accomplish.

The unfortunate absence of such teamwork may well be the major reason for the fact that, admittedly, no clear definitions

exist of such general stylistic categories as archaic, classic, baroque, etc., nor of such style concepts as realism and idealism, "conservative" and "revolutionary," "middle-class" or "courtly." It has been long recognized that a given social frame does not automatically exclude greater or lesser stylistic variety even within one single branch of art.' 3 Thus, realistic, ideal and idealizing, conservative and innovative styles may exist side by side (Ingres-Delacroix, Annibale Carracci-Michel- angelo da Caravaggio). However, only the art historian can determine which style, at any given moment, is innovative or traditional in terms of its formal and expressive characteristics. Whereas it is the job of the sociologist to define and identify the social group or groups corresponding to it in terms of eager acceptance, tolerance, rejection, etc. By no means can it be taken for granted that a (religiously, economically, socially) conservative group or audience will always and necessarily sponsor a "conservative" style. The same holds true for the champions of innovation.14 It should also be borne in mind that an art style which is revolutionary in its form may be quite different in its social, political, philosophical content (Kandinsky, Mondrian, etc.).

But how is the content and its meaning to be determined? The answer describes the possibilities and limits of a sociology of art.

For the art historian the content inheres in the total formal structure of the work because in its specific artistic reality it critically actuates-reflecting, transcending, opposing, glorify- ing-salient material, social and mental configurations and values of the given society as a whole.'s It is only in these cognitive terms that the content can be interpreted meaning- fully for a sociology of art. The various historical revivals of classical antiquity are a case in point.

While it is true that such revivals, indirectly or directly derived from antique art and literature, have frequently ac- companied social, economic, political changes connected with the rise of an urban middle class (early and High Renaissance in Italy, French Revolution, etc.), they have likewise served as the official style of absolutist and totalitarian regimes (Louis XIV, Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler), especially for their architec- ture. Hence, the attempt to mechanically equate-on the basis of similar characteristics of form-all classic revivals with an emergent or victorious middle class is impossible. In other words: unless each revival is analyzed by both the art historian and the sociologist-in keeping with the criteria of their fields-in relation to the particular historical circumstances in which they occurred, neither their political, ideological, or other contents or functions can be grasped.

Furthermore, not every revival shows the same understand- ing of classical art. French Neo-classicism around 1800, for example, exhibits a lesser comprehension of the classic than, say, the Italian Renaissance. This despite the fact that the archeological knowledge around 1800 was far greater than it had been before.l6

Similar analyses have to be conducted for each style in order to assure that the interpretation of its linkage to society will be grounded in something more than mere analogies.17 This type of analyses would forestall invocation of the Zeitgeist as a magic explanation for everything. Actually, they would eventually lead to an explanation of the Zeitgeist itself.' 8

In other words, it may be true that "a dominant style is

ART JOURNAL XXXV/1 30

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.76 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 05:30:25 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 4: Reflections on Art History and Sociology of Art

always a style of those in positions of dominance" (Ein herrschender Stil ist immer ein Stil von Herrschenden).l 9 But this observation fails to recognize that greater works of art-in contrast to lesser works-do not simply reflect prevailing modes of thought, beliefs, or mental attitudes. The quality peculiar to art is precisely that while fulfilling whatever functions it may have in a given society, its contents may contradict the dominant proclaimed values. If works of art were merely reflecting conditions prevailing in a specific historical setting-how could they be experienced in periods different from the time of origination?

At first glance the mode of procedure advocated here seems to preclude the comprehensive presentation of more than one stylistic period. But a distinction must be made between sweeping generalizations and valid syntheses. Actually, the proposed approach, helped by the methods employed by the sociology of knowledge, prepares the ground for such syntheses in that the concrete findings yielded by the two-fold investigation of each individual period offer a solid basis for general conclusions.

For a sociology of art the best way of arriving at an understanding of the various roles and functions exercised within a given period by each particular field of art (architecture, painting, etc.) and its subdivisions (churches, city halls, office buildings; frescoes, easel painting, commercial art), or by individual works, is to study the "reception" accorded them in the course of history. The greater the time interval separating the scholar from the work of art and its original audience, the more difficult it becomes to obtain foolproof findings. The idea that it is possible to completely reconstruct the reaction of the original viewers is utopian. All that can be hoped for is a reasonable degree of approximation. Yet a careful study of the reception-history provides insights into the value-orientations of the viewers spread over time, and those inherent in the works of art. The reception-history as a source has hardly been tapped by sociologists of the visual arts although art historians have amassed a vast quantity of data. While it is, of course, extremely difficult, if not impossible, to come to the core of the artistic experience of any individual beholder (past or present), other, less private aspects of the reception are quite discernible. Here the conditions surround- ing the reception on the part of the different social strata can be concretely examined and classified. A valuable attempt in this direction, dealing with the contemporary museum public, has been undertaken, for example, by Pierre Bourdieu and Alain Darbel.20

The more rigorous the study of reception-history, the more precise will our knowledge of the linkage between art styles and society become. It will likewise increase scholars' chances to determine the diverse processes and mechanisms operative in this relation.

Summing up: interdisciplinary teamwork is the prerequisite for the establishment of a sociology of art that would correspond to the historical complexity of art in society without neglecting the specifics of the one or the other, as is the case when it is stated that "though widely different in content and form, the primitive and medieval works of art have at least three essential characteristics in common."2

Of late there have been such initiatives among young German scholars, mostly working on the basis of the so-called "critical theory" and that of the "critique of ideology."

These new attempts are not necessarily exemplary, given the authors' tendency to read ideology into the works of art rather than out of them. But, by their restoring to specialized sociology and art history the historical dimension these disciplines have lost, these essays merit the serious attention of all students in the field. a

Vytautas Kavolis, Artistic Expression-A Sociological Analysis, Cornell Univ. Press, 1968, p. 212, note 7. 2 Gerhard Grohs, "Probleme einer Soziologie der Bildenden Kuenste," in European Journal of Sociology, X, 1970, p. 155. 3 The only sociological publications that seem to receive critical, though mostly negative, attention at all in academic art-historical literature are those written by art historians who are interested in sociology. 4 This fact is acknowledged by all sociologists: "There is, of course, no need for the sociologist to go into the matter of style in any great detail," A. C. Sewter, "The Possibilities of a Sociology of Art," in The (British) Sociological Review, vol. 27, Oct., 1935, p. 448. "A sociological investigation of art is not inter- ested in the art products themselves qua art products, but only in the cus- toms and institutions revealed in these products and in the relation of these to other customs and institutions of the same group or other groups.... It is interested in art as an institution (a system of institutional procedure)," A. S. Tomars, Introduction to the Sociology of Art, Mexico City, 1940, p. 19. "Die Soziologie beobachtet und untersucht das Verhalten von Gruppen in den verschiedenen Formen ihrer Vergesellschaftung (Kollektive, Schicht, Klasse, Menge, usw.) und deren Institutionen (System der inneren und aeusseren Kommunikation, u.a.) Der individuelle Fall (the author speaks about the recep- tion of art, H. D.) ist fuer sie nur interessant, sofern er Element einer Stich- probe ist, aus der eine Haeufigkeitsverteilung von typischen Reaktionen statis- tisch ermittelt werden kann." Guenther K. Lehmann, "Von den Moeglichkeiten und Grenzen einer Soziologie der Kunst." in Deutsche Zeitschrift fuer Philoso- phie, LL, vol. 11/I, 1966, p. 1400. 6 To give but a few random examples: A. Huth, Kuenstler und Werkstatt der Spaetgotik, Augsburg, 1923; M. Wackernagel, Der Lebensraum des Kuens- tiers in der florentinischen Renaissance, Leipzig, 1938; Joan Evans, Art in Medieval France. A Study in Patronage, Oxford, 1952; Creighton Gilbert, "The Archbishop on the Painters of Florence, 1450," in The Art Bulletin, March, 1959, 1, p. 75-87; Francis Haskell, Patron's and Painters. A Study in the Relations between Italian and Society in the Age of the Baroque, New York, 1963; E. H. Gombrich, The Early Medicis as Patrons of Art, reprinted in Norm and Form, London, 1966; Georges Wildenstein, "Le gout pour la peinture dans le cercle de la bourgeoisie parisienne autour de 1700," in Gazaette des Beaux Arts, 1956, vol. XLVIII, pp. 113-194.

A. L. Kroeber, The Nature of Culture, Univ. of Chicago Press, 1952, p. 5. 7 For a discussion of this basic problem see Th.W. Adorno, "Der Positivismus- streit in der deutschen Soziologie" (1969) in Aufsaetze zur Gesellschaftstheorie und Methodologie, Frankfurt/M, 1970, pp. 167-245; also Juergen Habermas, Erkenntnis und Interesse, in Technik und Wissenschaft als 'Ideologie' Frankfurt/M, 1970, pp.146-168. For a representative of the "scientific" method in art history, strongly opposed to the opinions held by the above authors, see E.H. Gombrich, The Social History of Art, review of A. Hauser's Social History of Art, in The Art Bulletin, March, 1953, reprinted in Meditation on a Hobby Horse, London, 1963; by the same author, Mannerism. the historiographic background, in Norm and Form, pp. 99-106. Professor Gombrich's irritation with the method of dialectic materialism employed by A. Hauser goes so far that he even doubts the existence of capitalism. "Capitalism-if there is such a thing," p. 88. 8 This is exemplified in so outstanding a study as that by F. Haskell; the author states that he has been "severely empirical" in his approach and acknowledges his deliberate avoidance of "any attempt to 'explain' art in terms of patronage." Haskell, Patrons and Painters, preface, p. XVIII. 9 Henri Focillon, The Life of Forms in Art, New York, 1948, p. 60. 10 "The ceaseless growth of scholarly literature, particularly in the history of art, is dominated by the somewhat analogous rule that the more research (r) is done on a smaller number of subjects (s), the more our understanding (u) seems

to diminish: - u = -- If A writes four pages about a given problem, it takes B

sixteen to refute him, and C needs sixty-four to restore-more or less-the status quo." E. Panofsky, "Virgo & Victrix; a note on Duerer's Nemesis," in Thirteen illustrated essays selected for the Print Council of America by Carl Zigrosser, New York, 1962, p. 15. After the witty formulation of this "law" however, Panofsky proceeds to study the iconographic sources of Duerer's Nemesis in nine pages of text and seven pages of seventy-seven footnotes!

FALL 1975 31

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.76 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 05:30:25 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 5: Reflections on Art History and Sociology of Art

II See the statement of Otto Benesch, The Art of the Renaissance in Northern Europe. Its Relation to the Contemporary Spiritual and Intellectual Movements, Harvard Univ. Press, 1945. Intro., note 7, p. 146: "Since the era of historism, research in the various special fields has been advanced so much that any attempt to draw a comprehensive picture is bound to fail." On the unfortunate results of specialization for the educated layman, see William Arrowsmith," Art and Education," in The Arts and the Public, James F. Miller, Jr., P.D. Herring, ed. Chicago, 1967, p. 264: "For every recent or modern period, the scholars' claim of special possession is not so noisy or exclusive. But the Middle Ages, the Renaissance-here there is invariably a scholar, an expert who knows... As a result, a period like the Renaissance that until yesterday was regarded as one of the great seminal periods, has been rendered almost useless to culture. it is private property; nobody but the specialist can get it... I am passion- ately convinced of the need ... to maintain that the great periods of the Western past are not private property, closed off for pur research. And fur- thermore that these periods need to be made available and approached in the only human way to approach the past-for its bearing on the present, for the aspects which most speak to us now." 12 Raymonde Moulin, Le Marche de la Peinture en France, Paris, 1967. The author remarks that since about the middle of the 19th century "ce n'est plus seulement I'oeuvre faite qui est entree dans un circuit 6conomique d'offre et de demande, mais, dans la mesure ob la condition 6conomique d6pend exclusive- ment du march6, I'oeuvre 3 faire" (italics mine), p. 46. Evidently this fact influences the total conception and hence, the style of the work in a way markedly different from the demands imposed upon artists in earlier periods. 13 See Henri Focillon, also J.A. Schmoll gen. Eisenwerth, "Stilpluralismus Statt Einheitszwang-zur Kritik der Stilepochen-Kunstgeschichte," in Argos, Festschrift fuer Kurt Badt, 1970, pp. 77-95; Hans Sedlmayr, "Die grenzen der Stilgeschichte und die Kunst des 19. Jahrhunderts," in Der Tod des Lichts, Salzburg, 1964, pp. 101-114; Jan Bialstocki, "'Barock': Stil, Epoche, Haltung," and "Der Manierismus zwischen Triumph und Daemmerung. Ein Forschungsbericht," both in Stil und Ikonographie. Studien zur Kunstwis- senschaft, Dresden, 1965.

4 "The completion and decoration of new churches were carried out by wealthy but politically unimportant patrons, who were not in touch with the most modern artists of the day and who were thus compelled to fall back on well-established favourites. It is therefore paradoxically true that a well- informed traveler in about 1620 would have found that most of the best modern paintings in Rome were in the oldest churches." Haskell, pp. 5-6. 15 The material configurations include not only the available raw materials and the level of technical civilization. They include also the existing societal processes of production. "Changing first of all are the conditions under which architecture is operating. One major change has already been referred to.... It is the change from the personal to the impersonal client. That an impersonal style, such as the rationalism and functionalism of 1930 largely was, suits these conditions better than any style derived from the past goes without

saying. That the anonymity of the committee, whether municipal or commer- cial, tends to discourage individual enterprise, and indeed genius, is equally

patent.... As the client ceases to be a man and becomes a committee, so the architect is on the way from being a man to being a partnership or a firm. The Architects Department of the County of London employs 3000 (of which 1500 are trained architects). A firm in the USA-not producing any- thing that is not of the highest standard-had in 1953 ten Directors, seven Associate Partners, eleven participating Associates and a staff of 1000." Nicolas Pevsner. An Outline of European Architecture, Baltimore, 1960, p. 686. 16 See Max Raphael, Proudhon. Marx, Picasso. Trois Etudes sur la Sociologie de l'Art, Paris, 1933, p. 178. 17 Analogies, while not exactly explaining anything, may of course be helpful as a basis for further investigations. But it is frequently forgotten that even the possibility of establishing meaningful analogies between styles in art and particular forms or phases of political, economic structures, etc., depend on the collaboration of art historians and sociologists here proposed. Terms such as "simple" or "complex," for example, do not make sense in reference to works of art. Masaccio may be "simpler" than Gentile da Fabriano. He certainly is also an entirely different type of artist. But how could both artists be related to the recently-however cautiously-formulated hypothesis that "a decline in economic prosperity is unlikely to result in simplification of Art"? V. Kavolis, p. 23. Apart from the fact that Masaccio worked for economically prosperous clients at a time of an expanding economy in Florence, this hypothesis would also contradict the art production of Venice in the 18th century, among other periods. Moreover, not only with regard to art but also seen within the historical development as such, the term "simple" needs clarification. The final stage of a preceding historical development may be more complex than the initial stages of the subsequent development: The World of Egyptian agriculture is simpler than the world of Phoenician maritime trade; the world of the nomad hunter simpler than the world of the Mesopotamian peasant. But this 'simplicity' is entirely relative: the late hunting age is more complex than the early age of the farmer working with hoe or stick, and for that reason the frescoes on the ceiling of Altamira are more complex than the ornamentation of neolithic earthen- ware." Max Raphael, Prehistoric Cave Paintings, The Bollingen Series IV, Washington, D.C., 1945, p. 3. Another example would be the fact that the "first printed books were made to look like manuscripts," Edgar Wind, Art and Anarchy, The Reith Lectures 1960, London, 1963, p. 70. 18 See Ernst Kitzinger, review of H.P. L'Orange's Art Forms and Civic Life in the Late Roman Empire, Princeton, 1965, in The Art Bulletin, vol. XLIX, December, 1967, pp. 350-351. 9 J. A. Schmoll gen. Eisenwerth, p. 92.

20 Pierre Bourdieu and Alain Darbel, L'Amour de l'Art. Les MusBes et leur Public, Paris, 1966. 21 Z. Barbu, "Sociological perspectives in art and literature," in The Social Context of Art, Jean Creedy ed., Tavistock Publications, 1970, p. 16 ff.

Hanna Deinhard is an Associate Professor in the Queens College, City University of New York, Art Department.

A R T JOURNAL XXXV/1 32

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.76 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 05:30:25 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions