-----Original Message----- From: William Conger <[email protected]> To: aesthetics-l <[email protected]> Sent: Tue, Dec 3, 2013 8:44 pm Subject: Re: comment invited
? ?I agree that "The History of Art" ?can be described ?as having among others a methodology which is the classification of style. I would like to see how you apply this to historical accounts ?before ?Winckelmann. The shifting of styles from Italy to Northern Europe was described ?by artists-Durer ?for ?one, and Simon Vouet made a great success ?bringing the ?Italian style to the French. Le Brun ?was honored for his development of an appropriate style for the French Court ,both he and the court were aware of the evolution of Louis XIV style. Diderot remarked extensively on the changes both in physical style and in emotional and absorptive ?style in French painting. Dutch style changed ?greatly during the seventeenth century,from Van Mander to Sandrart is a leap Again, the term The History of Art in its most recognized use denotes an academic discipline with a long practiced methodology -- the classification of style -- and now several newer methodologies revolving around interpretations of culture. Using the term beyond its original narrow context leaves it open to any interpretation, usually popular and therefore unsubstantiated by a consistent method, more or less. Actually, by implementing the original methodology, invented by Winkleman in the 18C, one did not need to know what was art but simply looked for specific attributes of form. If the form fit, it's art, even if it was recognized in something previously unclassified as art. Of course, Winkleman;'s notion of proper form was based on antique Greek art and that excluded a lot of 'form' but that was untroubling until the later 19C and has become increasingly troublesome since the mid 20C. Now that canon of form is discredited and various new criteria can determine art, past and present. WC ________________________________ From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2013 4:25 PM Subject: Re: comment invited ? There seem to be "history of art" "the history of art" " history of known art" "the?history of known art" and then uncherished and very sad, isolated and obscure, "the history of unknown art" and "history of unknown art". ? "History of known art" seems to be the winner, and ?so back to the cherishable?Vasari. Try explaining that to Diderot.? -----Original Message----- From: Cheerskep <[email protected]> To: aesthetics-l <[email protected]> Sent: Tue, Dec 3, 2013 2:16 pm Subject: Re: comment invited In a message dated 12/3/13 12:49:00 PM, [email protected] writes: > Devise,if you will, an acceptable wording. > What I'm flailing at is the usage "THE" history of. . . Vasari's very cherishable work was a selection of stories and remarks about a number of artists. But it was "A" history, not "THE". I certainly don't deny that dominant artists have had tremendous influence on others who followed them, and the descriptions of their works-of-influence, and how and why they molded reactions and consequent efforts, can be compelling stuff. But in all genres -- not just visual arts -- I'm moved by the thought that many artists have worked in isolation, in obscurity, while producing works that would have affected countless other artists and contemplators if only those loners were known. Luckily, Dickinson's poetry, though written in relative obscurity, survived because of the persistence of people around her. It's hard to believe that there were no solitary poets of worthiness whose works never saw the light of printed day, whose manuscripts were long ago trashed by obtuse descendants cleaning out the attic. Put it another way. We should draw a distinction between a "history" and what it purports to be a history OF. A "history" of KNOWN works is different from a record of ALL works we might call "art" if we'd only known about them. There can be no book, no commentary, that I personally would be comfortable calling THE history of any genre.
