Search

The lavishly illuminated Prayer Book of Mary of Guelders (Berlin, SBB-PK, Ms. germ. qu. 42) was written in 1415 by Helmig die Lewe in the monastery of Marienborn near Arnhem. During the second half of the 19th cent. this manuscript gradually became known to historians of art in Germany and to church historians in the Netherlands. Its appreciation until c. 1900 depended on the point of view of its observers as well as on the gradual development of an art-historical vocabulary and the introduction of high-quality reproductions in scholarly publications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

After World War II, the Comité International d’Histoire de l’Art (CIHA), an international NGO of art historians, resumed its scientific activity. Since the first post-war meeting, however, we found that all members were men: famous figures from the History of Art who made up the historiographical pantheon and built the twentieth-century Western art historiography. During the 1950s, the sole exception was Cécile Goldscheider, Rodin Museum curator, who attended the Bureau sessions and general assemblies as a secretary. There were other female researchers linked somehow to the CIHA, like those involved in the Corpus Vitrearum Medii Aevi project or those who participated in the International Congresses of Art History. Over time, women gained ground and joined the CIHA as full members. Else Kai Sass, Professor at Aarhus University, was first in 1964, followed by Anna Maria Brizio, Klára Garas, and Jean Sutherland Boggs. Until 1979, no woman entered the Bureau. The Mexican Beatriz de la Fuente starred in this milestone. Since the gender gap was a fact, the aim of this paper is to delve into the role and achievements of these female academics within the CIHA during the Cold War period.

Copyright of Zivot Umjetnosti is the property of Zivot Umjetnosti and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Kronika is the property of Kronika, Casopis za Slovensko Krajevno Zgodovino and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This article investigates how one of the most eminent Byzantinists of the twentieth century, André Grabar (1896–1990), constructed his own methodology in a balanced dialogue between texts and images. At the very core of this study is his monograph L'empereur dans l'art byzantin (1936), which can be seen as emblematic of Grabar's approach. However, this article investigates not only Grabar's methodology but also his personal cultural background. I believe that this approach is necessary in the context of the epistemology of art history, since, as has been proven in other important studies, the interplay between history, social situations, and scholarship is crucial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Ars Adriatica is the property of Sveuciliste u Zadru (University of Zadar) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article is dedicated to the mostly unknown surveys written by Renate Wagner-Rieger that can be found in the archive of the Federal Monuments Authority Austria. These surveys were commissioned by the Federal Monuments Authority Austria and the Ministry of Education and Science and were dedicated to the protection of certain monuments. The article observes the protection process and shows Wagner-Rieger's rule as an expert.

The work of Renate Wagner-Rieger was crucial in reviving interest in 19th-century architecture and in its inclusion in Croatia’s national history of art. The use of stylistic terms, periodization of 19th-century architecture, particularly historicism, and Renate Wagner-Rieger’s method of organizing the text within monographs on the history of architecture of cities or areas according to building types have had a remarkable influence on how similar topics are treated in Croatian art history.

The paper inserts itself in the debate on (art) historiography and periodization, opposing linear and evolutionary models to anachronic and discontinuous ones. The latter are analyzed through Kunstwissenschaft, a new approach to art history, which emerged at the end of the 19th century, initially in the German speaking countries, in opposition to traditional historiographical models, anticipating actual practices, such as Visual Studies and Global Art History. In particular, this paper offers some examples of how Kunstwissenschaft reflected on its epistemic tools, confronting itself with the time in which art history started to reflect on its own status, the Renaissance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the lively debate that occupied the realm of art history in Italy between the 1970s and the early 1980s, coinciding with the institution of the Regions with ordinary statute and the almost contemporary creation of the new Ministry of Cultural Heritage, the southern regions participated only marginally. If the need for a different engagement in the government of the territories and cultural heritage was no less evident than in the other regions of Italy, the organisation and consistency of both technical and political institutions involved in the field were very different. Consequently, the responses from art historians were equally different. In the following pages, an attempt will be made to explain this diversity, highlighting the fundamental passages of the historical practice of the preservation of works of art in continental Southern Italy from the end of the Second World War to the 1980 earthquake which, for the South, continues to have a strong periodizing importance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The cultural climate, historical-artistic studies and the set of territorial reconnaissance initiatives carried out from the mid-1970s onwards in Piedmont are an emblematic case of a particular historiographical and historical-artistic season that did not conceal, indeed, claimed political responsibility for research in dialogue with institutions and community instances. Art-historical research developed in a context of renewed interest in the preservation of heritage, indeed, they constituted strong episodes of a fierce protection that Giovanni Romano embodied for a not short period: through the most up-todate research, protection acted as a driving force and as an attractor for the convergence of different skills in the human sciences. Piedmont responded to the needs of conservation with a methodological proposal that developed a particular interest in the knowledge of the context, both territorial and urban, within which the analysis of the objects had to be concentrated, thus rescued from their isolation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Due to the close interplay of art history and policies for the protection of cultural heritage that took place in the region, Umbria in the 1970s represented a laboratory for the experimentation of practices and theories, which made of it a laboratory for innovative experiences, albeit of limited duration, or ambitious projects, acknowledged by the local authority but not realised. There were numerous initiatives of different types and in different fields: the Pilot Project for the Regeneration of the Historic Sites in the Apennines (1972-1976), the workshop series for cultural heritage maintenance and restoration operators in Spoleto (from 1974), the Pilot Plan for the Programmed Conservation of the Cultural Heritage in Umbria (1972-1976), the Ricerche in Umbria (1976-2006), the Plan for the Regional Catalogue (1977-1979), I Manuali per il territorio (1977-1980), the District Consortia (1980). The common denominator was the participation of Bruno Toscano (1930) in each one of these experiences. This short essay will focus on these projects, the discussions that accompanied them, and revolve around the events and research of Toscano, who was one of the most active militant art historians of this period, in professional and friendly association with Andrea Emiliani, Enrico Castelnuovo, Antonio Paolucci, Giovanni Previtali and Giovanni Romano and many others. A recent article by Bruno Toscano, published in the Festschrift for Fabio Bettoni, makes this attempt at reconstruction easier. In fact, the question Toscano poses there closely resembles the one around which this issue of «Quaderni storici» is structured: whether and to what extent the common engagement of scholars, here art historians, had political impact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Espacio, Tiempo y Forma. Serie VII, Historia del Arte is the property of Editorial UNED and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Espacio, Tiempo y Forma. Serie VII, Historia del Arte is the property of Editorial UNED and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The issue of the relationship between art history, its analytical procedures and critical judgements, and the attitude of art historians to modern art has long been a problem discussed when we refer, for example, to scholars such as Riegl, Wolfflin, and, for obvious reasons, Justi or Sedlmayr. Although many art historians reacted very negatively to their own contemporary artistic phenomena, of which Justi's aversion to Impressionism was perhaps the most notable example, the issue is by no means clear-cut. It is important to note here that even critical remarks made against distinct phenomena in modern art need not be tantamount to a condemnation of "modernity". Edgar Wind, an outstanding methodologist of science and an excellent art historian of the 18th century and the Renaissance, seems to be a particularly interesting example here. Criticising various manifestations of the cult of "pure form", and associating them with the influence of Romantic "autonomy" of art creation and certain concepts from the sphere of art history as a discipline, Wind was at the same time a very insightful observer of contemporary art, valuing selected artists highly. This issue was presented in detail by Ben Thomas in his recently published book on Wind's attitude to contemporary art, drawing on Wind's previously unpublished and unknown materials. The present text is an attempt at a broader, problematising discussion of this issue on the basis of reading Ben Thomas's book, the publication of which should be regarded as an important event in the field of research into the history of art, history of art history, and the influence exerted by art history as a practice and as a discipline on the problem of esteeming modern art. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The impact of Max Dvořák is habitually considered to consist of reading his texts. I would like to argue that the key aspect is rather an interpretation and representation and that their mode depends on specific conditions of time and place. A recapitulation of renewed interest in Dvořák in Czech art historiography during the 1960s recognizes the strategies that were used to adapt his “idealistic” methodology for the use of the period Marxist-Leninist scholarship. It was only due to success of this re-interpretation campaign that Dvořák was able to fill the position of the “father of Czech art history”.

From his arrival in Italy in 1755, Winckelmann's work is infused throughout by a fundamental antinomy: reading versus seeing. This antinomy possesses for him a decidedly epistemological significance: it allows him to present himself as the father of a discipline deserving of its name, i.e., the history of art. In Geschichte der Kunst des Alterthums (1764), he claims to break with a long tradition of art discourse which had been primarily supported by ancient texts, basing his book instead on the direct observation of the artworks. The aim of this paper is to critically examine this antinomy. How does seeing relate to reading in his working method? What relationship does art history, in the empirical dimension Winckelmann wanted to give it, have to book knowledge? Winckelmann's excerpts collection provides valuable answers to these questions. Following an old scholarly tradition, Winckelmann used to write down passages of his readings, constituting a vast handwritten library of excerpts which never left him. The result of this intense excerpting practice consists in some 7,500 pages, which allow to better define the share of empirical observation and book‐based knowledge in his approach to ancient art. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Writing an academic history of Polish art was an urgent task of art historians after World War I, when the country regained its political independence. An important and creditable achievement in that respect was a study by Michał Walicki and Juliusz Starzyński, published in 1934 as a kind of supplement to the monumental Geschichte der Kunst von der altchristlichen Zeit bis zur Gegenwart by the Marburg historian Richard Hamann, translated at that time into Polish. In 1936, the work of the Polish scholars was published again in the form of a separate book. The paper focuses on three problems that were addressed in it: the cultural and artistic ties of Poland to the West, the vernacular features of Polish art, and the presence of the “Eastern art” in Polish artistic heritage. The author examines also the question whether those issues were related to the political, social, and cultural reality of the Second Polish Republic.

The paper is a reminiscence of my first meeting with the colleagues from the Institute of Art History of Adam Mickiewicz University, which took place at an annual conference of the Association of Art Historians in 1974, titled “Reflection on Art.” Choosing an unusual title, I wanted to convey the impetus with which a group of young art historians from Poznań entered the decent and somewhat stagnant stage of Polish art history. The critique they presented was directed against Polish academic institutions, the problematic of the conference, the empty rituals of academic life, etc. Even though I did not accept all their objections, the heated debate suddenly turned out for me to be a liberating factor, stimulating continuous critical thinking which is an antidote for spiritual and intellectual captivity.

The paper is a reminiscence of my first meeting with the colleagues from the Institute of Art History of Adam Mickiewicz University, which took place at an annual conference of the Association of Art Historians in 1974, titled “Reflection on Art.” Choosing an unusual title, I wanted to convey the impetus with which a group of young art historians from Poznań entered the decent and somewhat stagnant stage of Polish art history. The critique they presented was directed against Polish academic institutions, the problematic of the conference, the empty rituals of academic life, etc. Even though I did not accept all their objections, the heated debate suddenly turned out for me to be a liberating factor, stimulating continuous critical thinking which is an antidote for spiritual and intellectual captivity.

The five or eight years leading up to the failed “Prague Spring” represent the most important period of Czech humanities tradition during the Communist Party dictatorship. Art history did not directly participate in either of the most prominent period discourses, but it was able to develop its own specific methodologies following the Czech continuation of the Vienna School legacy. The contribution analyzes the discourse of Marxist Iconology, developed by J. Neumann and R. Chadraba, and presents the case of F. Šmejkal and his concept of Imaginative Art, which was, interestingly, the sole case during the whole 40 years of the Communist Party rule when the highest Party officials became directly involved in Czech art historical practice. From the point of view of art historical practice, the most important feature of the brief period 1963–1969 was the new possibility of contacts with foreign art historians and of traveling abroad.

Writing an academic history of Polish art was an urgent task of art historians after World War I, when the country regained its political independence. An important and creditable achievement in that respect was a study by Michał Walicki and Juliusz Starzyński, published in 1934 as a kind of supplement to the monumental Geschichte der Kunst von der altchristlichen Zeit bis zur Gegenwart by the Marburg historian Richard Hamann, translated at that time into Polish. In 1936, the work of the Polish scholars was published again in the form of a separate book. The paper focuses on three problems that were addressed in it: the cultural and artistic ties of Poland to the West, the vernacular features of Polish art, and the presence of the “Eastern art” in Polish artistic heritage. The author examines also the question whether those issues were related to the political, social, and cultural reality of the Second Polish Republic.

The title of this article recalls a session of the 2012 CIHA congress in Nuremberg – 'CIHA as the Object of Art History' – that analysed the role the Comité International d'Histoire de l'Art in the development of art history as a discipline. Only a few years earlier, Heinrich Dilly had drawn an overview of the International Congresses of Art History, together with specialists of other fields. Dilly explained the lack of interest of art historiography for the import of such conferences with the fact that they were 'too big a matter', as the papers had rapidly multiplied, and also 'very large a matter', in the sense that the debate was difficult to frame and, more often than not, the choice of participants depended on a political agenda rather than scientific reasons. This article thus endeavours to tackle this very large matter as a vantage point on the methodological reflection, in the attempt to trace the continuities and discontinuities of the theoretical discourse insofar as discussed in CIHA meetings, from the Lisbon conference in 1949 to that held in Nuremberg in 2012.

Copyright of Liño: Revista Annual de Historia del Arte is the property of Universidad de Oviedo, Servicio de Publicaciones and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The paper is a reminiscence of my first meeting with the colleagues from the Institute of Art History of Adam Mickiewicz University, which took place at an annual conference of the Association of Art Historians in 1974, titled "Reflection on Art." Choosing an unusual title, I wanted to convey the impetus with which a group of young art historians from Poznan entered the decent and somewhat stagnant stage of Polish art history. The critique they presented was directed against Polish academic institutions, the problematic of the conference, the empty rituals of academic life, etc. Even though I did not accept all their objections, the heated debate suddenly turned out for me to be a liberating factor, stimulating continuous critical thinking which is an antidote for spiritual and intellectual captivity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The five or eight years leading up to the failed "Prague Spring" represent the most important period of Czech humanities tradition during the Communist Party dictatorship. Art history did not directly participate in either of the most prominent period discourses, but it was able to develop its own specific methodologies following the Czech continuation of the Vienna School legacy. The contribution analyzes the discourse of Marxist Iconology, developed by J. Neumann and R. Chadraba, and presents the case of F. Smejkal and his concept of Imaginative Art, which was, interestingly, the sole case during the whole 40 years of the Communist Party rule when the highest Party officials became directly involved in Czech art historical practice. From the point of view of art historical practice, the most important feature of the brief period 1963-1969 was the new possibility of contacts with foreign art historians and of traveling abroad. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Writing an academic history of Polish art was an urgent task of art historians after World War I, when the country regained its political independence. An important and creditable achievement in that respect was a study by Michal Walicki and Juliusz Starzynski, published in 1934 as a kind of supplement to the monumental Geschichte der Kunst von der altchristlichen Zeit bis zur Gegenwart by the Marburg historian Richard Hamann, translated at that time into Polish. In 1936, the work of the Polish scholars was published again in the form of a separate book. The paper focuses on three problems that were addressed in it: the cultural and artistic ties of Poland to the West, the vernacular features of Polish art, and the presence of the "Eastern art" in Polish artistic heritage. The author examines also the question whether those issues were related to the political, social, and cultural reality of the Second Polish Republic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Acta Historiae Artis Slovenica is the property of Scientific Research Centre of Slovenian Academy of Sciences & Arts and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)