Vienna School of Art History

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Vienna School of Art History is a collective term for the fundamental art historical methods developed at the University of Vienna . It is a scientific evolution that spans several generations, with a number of scholars each building on the findings of their predecessors and developing them further. Essential elements of this became fundamental for the entire modern art history, even though the individual draft methods are no longer unrestrictedly valid today.

A characteristic trait is the effort to strike a balance between theory and practice. Almost all of the important representatives of the Viennese School endeavored to combine an academic career as a university teacher with conservation work in museums and monument preservation .

The term "Viennese Art History School" was first used by Otto Benesch in 1920 and was widely used by Julius von Schlosser's 1934 treatise on the history of science. The most important representatives are mentioned in the following section.

history

Pragmatic art history

As a "founding father" of the Vienna School applies Rudolf Eitelberger that in the years of the pre-March period had acquired a profound connoisseurship in private and was appointed the first professor of art history at the University of Vienna. 1852 His concern was to objectify the aesthetic view of art that was common at the time using historical facts. He saw art historical research as a prerequisite for enhancing taste and improving contemporary art. With this purposeful attitude he became one of the main protagonists of historicism in Austria.

The first graduate of the new art history course at Eitelberger was Moritz Thausing , who himself was appointed second professor in 1879 . He took the decisive step beyond his teacher towards an autonomous, purpose-free science and called for the complete separation of art history and aesthetics .

Formalistic art history

Thausing's students Franz Wickhoff (professorship 1891) and Alois Riegl (professorship 1897) fulfilled this postulate by devising methods of comparative style analysis and trying to eliminate any personal judgment of taste. In this way both came to a re-evaluation of late antiquity , which until then had been underestimated as an era of decline. Riegl in particular, as an avowed supporter of positivism, concentrated on the purely formal existence of the work of art and rejected any content-related discussion as metaphysical speculation.

Idealistic art history

After the early deaths of Riegl and Wickhoff, one of the two art history chairs was occupied in 1909 by Max Dvořák , who initially continued the tradition of his predecessors. Gradually, however, Dvořák's interest turned to the content-related issues of artistic creation - that is, precisely what had not been the subject of art history for Riegl. Under the influence of contemporary Expressionism , Dvořák gained a deep understanding of the non-classical mannerism . Dvořák's idealistic method, which was later given the term “art history as intellectual history”, found its most committed advocates in Hans Tietze and Otto Benesch .

Structuralist art history

Max Dvořák also died early and Julius von Schlosser succeeded him in 1922 . Schlosser embodied the type of classical humanist scholar and had a fondness for the art and culture of Italy throughout his life. He was close friends with the Italian philosopher Benedetto Croce and the Munich Romanist Karl Vossler , under whose influence he developed an art-historical method based on linguistic models. From the “history of style” of the ingenious artist and his singular creation, he distinguished a “history of language” of the visual arts, which encompasses the broad spectrum of artistic creation. From locksmith school walked side by Ernst Kris Hans Sedlmayr , Otto Pächt and Ernst H. Gombrich out that the study of art in the thirties of the twentieth century structuralism justified; Meyer Schapiro coined the term “New Vienna School” for this.

Ideological art history

Josef Strzygowski , who was appointed to the second chair at the same time as Max Dvořák in 1909 , occupies a special position . He was an opponent of the traditional view of history and represented an anti-classical, anti-humanist and anti-clerical position. Contrary to the common view of history related to ancient Rome and Hellas , he turned his interest to the Orient and believed that there he discovered the traces of an original "Nordic" being that was inferior to the forces of the Mediterranean striving for power. With these idiosyncratic views he found himself in opposition to the “orthodox” branch of the Viennese school, in particular the “archhumanist” Schlosser, who for his part ostracized Strzygowski as “Attila of art history”. There was a complete, also spatial separation, so that from now on two art historical institutes existed side by side. Since the methods of his opponents could not meet Strzygowski's claims either, he constructed a strictly tabular “plan research” that was supposed to guarantee absolute objectivity, but from today's point of view is of course impractical and only served to underpin his theories. Strzygowski's worldview took on increasingly bizarre, racist features and approached National Socialist ideology. Nevertheless, his institute was closed in 1933 when he retired. Today he is credited with expanding the boundaries of occidental art history and opening them to non-European cultures. And his appreciation of abstract art - which he understood as specifically "Nordic" quality - contains approaches to an art-historical examination of modernity. Despite the reservations that still exist, Strzygowski today also has his appropriate place in the circle of the Vienna School.

synthesis

The time of National Socialism marked a turning point for the Vienna School. Numerous scholars had to emigrate and came into contact with the scientific thoughts of other nations, especially the Anglo-American region. As a declared National Socialist, Hans Sedlmayr continued to run the institute and at the end of the war was about to end his career on Viennese soil. In 1946 Karl Maria Swoboda took over the management of the institute, at which a synthesis of the previously rival schools of Schlosser and Strzygowski was emerging - albeit far from its ideological intransigence . In 1963 two full professorships were created for Otto Pächt and Otto Demus . Under the two “Ottonians”, Vienna rose to become the “Mecca of medieval art history”, but Fritz Novotny, a specialist , also devoted himself to classical modernism . Werner Hofmann is the youngest scholar committed to the legacy of the Vienna School, who further developed it individually and adapted it for the scientific approach to contemporary art .

Literature (selection)

  • Otto Benesch : The Vienna Art History School. In: Österreichische Rundschau. Vol. 62 (1920), pp. 174-178.
  • Julius von Schlosser : The Vienna School of Art History. Review of a secular work of German scholars in Austria (= communications from the Austrian Institute for Historical Research. Supplementary Volume 13, Issue 2). Wagner, Innsbruck 1934.
  • Meyer Schapiro : The New Viennese School. In: The Art Bulletin. Vol. 18 (1936), H. 2, pp. 258-266 ( PDF ).
  • Vienna and the development of the art historical method (= files of the XXV. International Congress for Art History 1983. Vol. 1). Böhlau Vienna / Graz 1984.
  • Christopher S. Wood: The Vienna School reader. Politics and art historical method in the 1930s. New York 2000.
  • Vienna School - Memories and Perspectives (= Vienna Yearbook for Art History. Vol. 53). Böhlau, Vienna 2004.
  • Edwin Lachnit : The Vienna School of Art History and the Art of its Time. On the relationship between method and subject of research at the beginning of modernity. Böhlau, Vienna / Cologne / Weimar 2005.
  • Matthew Rampley: The Vienna School of Art History. Empire and the Politics of Scholarship. Pennsylvania University Press, University Park 2013.

Web links