DOI article:
Bakoš, Ján: Úvahy o umeleckohistorickom stanovisku Alberta Kutala
DOI Page / Citation link:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.51703#0274
142
Ref lections on Albert KutaFs Art Historical Standpoint
The outstanding medievalist Albert Kutal was never expli-
citly concerned with questions of theory and philosophy of the
history of art. Nevertheless, a very consistent art historical
conception may be seen to reside in the basis of his work and
may be ideally interpreted in the following pattern:
The fundamental tension in Kutal’s conception is given by
a dialectical bond between a crystallized empiricism and a radical
rationalism, between an analysis of concrète works of art on the
one hand, and the construction of art historical development on
the other hand.
Beyond this, one may surmise the existence of a further, deeper,
nonexplicit layer. We can reconstruct it as follows: Art is appre-
hended here as a particular form, as a unique moulding, as a
quality. In its creativeness a work of art regarded as form is
a self-justifying phenomenon. Hence, according to this standpoint,
there is no sense in speculating about the essence of art, just as
it would be unwarranted to infer this spécifie presence, or the
nature of the contents from rational spheres. Meaning is to be
found solely in the history of art, in art historical development,
since the essence of art involves its historicity. History, however,
is not justified in the shape of inference of works from discoursive
spheres: Works of art are sufficiently meaningful by their formai
creativeness. Reducing them to rationality would impoverish
them, depriving them of their evident particular “nondiscursive”
meaning and content. Consequently, the artistic quality of a work
is, according to Kutal, apprehended directly, it cannot be inferred
from any coeval rational apriority and conventionality. Works
of art are understood as a sphere of ever lasting qualities which
corresponds to man’s anthropological constancy. In the back-
ground of this “extra-temporal” appréhension of art as of a spéci-
fie quality stands a conception of art: Art is conceived as a chang-
ing relationship towards the unchanging but un known reality.
In the case of Kutal, however, this appréhension of art, in
a great measure an ahistorico-anthropological one, did not give
rise to a cyclic conception of history. Art history is understood by
Kutal as a developmental continuity of artistic form. According
to him, we grasp artistic qualities immediately, directly, but not
their sense. Sense of a work of art rests in its place in historical
development, in its developmental genesis. We explain qualities
in their particularity by identifying the developmental continuity
from which they dérivé. Works of art arc components of develop-
ment, but they simultaneously realize the changes of develop-
ment. Hence, the meaning of a particular nature of art history
is to create history, to create continuity of development. True,
art historical development is inwardly structured, divided into
several trends, lines or movements. Nevertheless, movement,
dynamism, an incessant process of innovations is its décisive
factor. According to Kutal, not synchrony, but diachrony is the
essence of the history of art.
Accordingly continuity of development is meaningful in itself.
Since artistic quality constitutes an autonomous content, the
scientific identification of causal affinity or continuity between
works of art, too, is regarded as a sufficient historical explanation.
On the other hand, development of art is neither absolutely auto-
nomous (thesis that led to an ahistorical cyclical conception by
Wölfflin), nor a supplementary sign of a symbolic framework
(world view) or social conventions (e. g. in iconology and sociology
of art), nor yet an expression of spirituality and its embodiment
(as in “Geistesgeschichte”). Autonomous artistic development
is related to the socio-historical process in a particular way.
This is a relationship of parallelism. There is, however, no
question of any enigmatic, metaphysical paralellism, but of a
simultaneous “solution” of Contemporary problems by various
spheres of culture. Artistic development transforms socio-psycho-
logical problems into its own spécifie creativeness. But this does
not involve a reflection, but an instrument: Art participâtes in
the “solution” of contemporary problems precisely by means of
its particular nature (création of “nondiscursive” forms) and
this always from the aspect of a certain dass. Artistic develop-
ment repressents an embodiment of an independent “solution”
of these problems. This “independence” of solution may give rise
to a discordance between forms and contents, as also to a transfer
of certain forms from one social stratum to another. A participa-
tion in the solution of contemporary problems is not spécifie
solely in that it deals with the solution of spécifie créative issues
(that is a further level of autonomy and from it too, there ensues
an instrumentality of forms and their précision : disunity with the
content. Content as a conséquence of function). The “indepen-
dence” and special status of works of art in the socio-historical
process rests also in the fact that it “résolves” concrète historical
and socio-psychological problems on a “supratemporal” level
i. e. transforms them into a “supratemporal” platform of relation
to reality. This relation, however, embodies also the relation of
art to the external world as well as that one of art to art. In this
sense, “autonomous” and “independent” solutions as well as
the création of developmental affinities become parallel “solu-
tions” of problems of socio-historical process. As a resuit of this
parallel autonomy, works of art are potential instruments of the
social and historical process. They may be conceived a social
escape or anticipation, and glorification, etc. as the case
may be. The particular function of art historical changes is
regarded by Kutal as a resuit of relative independence of art.
The latter is an independence of its spécifie development. Art is
primarily related to the socio-psychological plane. Nevertheless,
it is a particular solution of socio-psychological problems, i. e.
works of art çreate “self-stylization” of society. That is the reason
why this may take place through a transformation into the estab-
lishment of relationships between art and reality. In this manner,
particular historical process is transformed into “extra-temporal”
artistic qualities, and, as a conséquence, an historical uniqueness
represents the sense or core of these qualities. Artistic qualities,
however, are by a feedback mechanism products of socio-psycho-
Ref lections on Albert KutaFs Art Historical Standpoint
The outstanding medievalist Albert Kutal was never expli-
citly concerned with questions of theory and philosophy of the
history of art. Nevertheless, a very consistent art historical
conception may be seen to reside in the basis of his work and
may be ideally interpreted in the following pattern:
The fundamental tension in Kutal’s conception is given by
a dialectical bond between a crystallized empiricism and a radical
rationalism, between an analysis of concrète works of art on the
one hand, and the construction of art historical development on
the other hand.
Beyond this, one may surmise the existence of a further, deeper,
nonexplicit layer. We can reconstruct it as follows: Art is appre-
hended here as a particular form, as a unique moulding, as a
quality. In its creativeness a work of art regarded as form is
a self-justifying phenomenon. Hence, according to this standpoint,
there is no sense in speculating about the essence of art, just as
it would be unwarranted to infer this spécifie presence, or the
nature of the contents from rational spheres. Meaning is to be
found solely in the history of art, in art historical development,
since the essence of art involves its historicity. History, however,
is not justified in the shape of inference of works from discoursive
spheres: Works of art are sufficiently meaningful by their formai
creativeness. Reducing them to rationality would impoverish
them, depriving them of their evident particular “nondiscursive”
meaning and content. Consequently, the artistic quality of a work
is, according to Kutal, apprehended directly, it cannot be inferred
from any coeval rational apriority and conventionality. Works
of art are understood as a sphere of ever lasting qualities which
corresponds to man’s anthropological constancy. In the back-
ground of this “extra-temporal” appréhension of art as of a spéci-
fie quality stands a conception of art: Art is conceived as a chang-
ing relationship towards the unchanging but un known reality.
In the case of Kutal, however, this appréhension of art, in
a great measure an ahistorico-anthropological one, did not give
rise to a cyclic conception of history. Art history is understood by
Kutal as a developmental continuity of artistic form. According
to him, we grasp artistic qualities immediately, directly, but not
their sense. Sense of a work of art rests in its place in historical
development, in its developmental genesis. We explain qualities
in their particularity by identifying the developmental continuity
from which they dérivé. Works of art arc components of develop-
ment, but they simultaneously realize the changes of develop-
ment. Hence, the meaning of a particular nature of art history
is to create history, to create continuity of development. True,
art historical development is inwardly structured, divided into
several trends, lines or movements. Nevertheless, movement,
dynamism, an incessant process of innovations is its décisive
factor. According to Kutal, not synchrony, but diachrony is the
essence of the history of art.
Accordingly continuity of development is meaningful in itself.
Since artistic quality constitutes an autonomous content, the
scientific identification of causal affinity or continuity between
works of art, too, is regarded as a sufficient historical explanation.
On the other hand, development of art is neither absolutely auto-
nomous (thesis that led to an ahistorical cyclical conception by
Wölfflin), nor a supplementary sign of a symbolic framework
(world view) or social conventions (e. g. in iconology and sociology
of art), nor yet an expression of spirituality and its embodiment
(as in “Geistesgeschichte”). Autonomous artistic development
is related to the socio-historical process in a particular way.
This is a relationship of parallelism. There is, however, no
question of any enigmatic, metaphysical paralellism, but of a
simultaneous “solution” of Contemporary problems by various
spheres of culture. Artistic development transforms socio-psycho-
logical problems into its own spécifie creativeness. But this does
not involve a reflection, but an instrument: Art participâtes in
the “solution” of contemporary problems precisely by means of
its particular nature (création of “nondiscursive” forms) and
this always from the aspect of a certain dass. Artistic develop-
ment repressents an embodiment of an independent “solution”
of these problems. This “independence” of solution may give rise
to a discordance between forms and contents, as also to a transfer
of certain forms from one social stratum to another. A participa-
tion in the solution of contemporary problems is not spécifie
solely in that it deals with the solution of spécifie créative issues
(that is a further level of autonomy and from it too, there ensues
an instrumentality of forms and their précision : disunity with the
content. Content as a conséquence of function). The “indepen-
dence” and special status of works of art in the socio-historical
process rests also in the fact that it “résolves” concrète historical
and socio-psychological problems on a “supratemporal” level
i. e. transforms them into a “supratemporal” platform of relation
to reality. This relation, however, embodies also the relation of
art to the external world as well as that one of art to art. In this
sense, “autonomous” and “independent” solutions as well as
the création of developmental affinities become parallel “solu-
tions” of problems of socio-historical process. As a resuit of this
parallel autonomy, works of art are potential instruments of the
social and historical process. They may be conceived a social
escape or anticipation, and glorification, etc. as the case
may be. The particular function of art historical changes is
regarded by Kutal as a resuit of relative independence of art.
The latter is an independence of its spécifie development. Art is
primarily related to the socio-psychological plane. Nevertheless,
it is a particular solution of socio-psychological problems, i. e.
works of art çreate “self-stylization” of society. That is the reason
why this may take place through a transformation into the estab-
lishment of relationships between art and reality. In this manner,
particular historical process is transformed into “extra-temporal”
artistic qualities, and, as a conséquence, an historical uniqueness
represents the sense or core of these qualities. Artistic qualities,
however, are by a feedback mechanism products of socio-psycho-