DOI issue:
Nr. 1
DOI article:Locher, Hubert: The role of the museum in the formation of the art historical discourse
DOI Page / Citation link:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.52804#0006
by Bartholomäus Sarburgh, on aesthetic grounds as
the original painting. Their conclusion was set against
the differing judgement of some historians. In the end,
the historians proved to be right which seemed to con-
firm their assertion that the aesthetic judgement rath-
er hindered the récognition of historical facts.
But if we consider not only the outcome but the
context of the ‘Holbeinstreit’, too, the episode rather
proves to be an example of the fact that any art crit-
ical judgement implies or entails an aesthetic judge-
ment. The judgement of the new experts, from now
on called art historians, implied aesthetic convictions
in so far as they assumed that medieval works of art
must necessarily differ stylistically from more recent
works. The critical historians of art worked towards
a theory in which older concepts adhèrent to the pla-
tonic tradition, like the concept of‘universal beauty’,
were neglected. The German romantics, for exam-
ple, still believed in ‘beauty’ as a constant idea that
could be perceived without rational reflection by any
human being. Probably even more important is the
fact that the outcome of the ‘Holbeinstreit’ was deci-
sively influenced by the visual arrangement of both
paintings in question in the context of a staged exhi-
bition of the works of Hans Holbein the Younger in
the mentioned Dresden gallery.* * * 5 On this occasion,
the gallery visitors could also compare the two paint-
ings in question with Raphael’s Sistine Madonna.
The hanging in this gallery resulted in a visual
arrangement apt to deconstruct the mere foundations
of romantic aesthetics. There is every reason to be-
lieve that the role of aesthetic expérience was of con-
sidérable importance not only to the outcome of this
particular debate. If towards the end of the 19th Cen-
tury a leading party of art historians supported the
restriction to a historical critical judgement, it was
not the exclusion of any aesthetic criticism that con-
stituted the identity of art history, but rather the join-
ing of historical and aesthetic criticism. It is on this
basis, I argue, that art history, since it was being in-
Beiheft, p. 87-100; BÄTSCHMANN, Oskar - GRIENER,
Pascal: Dze Darmstädter Madonna. Original gegen Fälschung,
Frankfurt a. M. 1998.
5 See HASKELL, Francis: The Ephemeral Museum. Old Master Pa-
intings and the Rise ofthe Art Exhibition. New Haven — London
2000, p. 91 : “this wasperhaps the first exhibition to bepromoted not
by a ktng or a group of noble collectons, a governement or an associa-
stalled as a discipline at academies of art, universities
and muséums took also an active part in the world of
artistic production, in the art trade, in the so-called
world of art (‘Kunstbetrieb’) right from the start.
Of course, what I am delineating here, as the ‘aes-
thetic interest’ of art historians is itself subject to con-
tinuons alteration. ‘Art historians’ like Johann
Joachim Winckelmann whom we would in our times
probably rather call an ‘archaeologist’, or Jakob
Burckhardt who actually was a ‘cultural historian’
might hâve had an aesthetic interest in a more nar-
row sense of the idea. They wanted to find out about
what ‘beauty’ is, and how, and when, and under what
circumstances it became materialized in the work of
art. A philosopher and literary critic like Friedrich
Schlegel tried to define the nature of a spécifie Ger-
man art by studying and comparing early ‘German’
painting (‘altdeutsche Malerei’) with the historical
development of the Italian ‘schools’ of painting. In
very different terms this same issue was of great in-
terest to the Swiss art historian Heinrich Wölfflin.
And if we go further and take into account the ‘aes-
thetic interest’ of Aby Warburg or Erwin Panofsky,
the development of art history as a profession with
its own méthodologies becomes apparent. Neither
Warburg nor Panofsky followed the tenets of art crit-
icism; instead both were trying to find out about the
role of ‘hidden’ concepts behind the visible pictures
rather than about ‘Art with a capital A’ (Kristeller).6
But even in these two cases we can recognize an in-
terest in the spécifie aesthetic nature of the objects
the scholars were concerned with. Warburg, for ex-
ample, tried to explain how irrational concepts were
brought under control if not even rationalized in the
realm of visual art.
Rationalisation after all, was considered to be the
main task of the art historian. The reason why many
art historians since the late 19th Century continuous-
ly denied their being involved in the process of artis-
tic production was probably their belief that ‘art’,
tion of artists, but by art-historical scholars”. This led to the great
Holbein-Exhibition that has to be called with Francis Haskell
one of the first ‘one man show of an Old Master’.
6 KRISTELLER, Paul Oskar: “The Modem System of the Arts.
A Study in the History of Aesthetics”. In:Journalofthe History
ofldeas, XII, 1951, p. 496-527 (Part I), and XIII, 1952, p.
17-46 (Part II). Quoted KRISTELLER 1951, p. 497
4
the original painting. Their conclusion was set against
the differing judgement of some historians. In the end,
the historians proved to be right which seemed to con-
firm their assertion that the aesthetic judgement rath-
er hindered the récognition of historical facts.
But if we consider not only the outcome but the
context of the ‘Holbeinstreit’, too, the episode rather
proves to be an example of the fact that any art crit-
ical judgement implies or entails an aesthetic judge-
ment. The judgement of the new experts, from now
on called art historians, implied aesthetic convictions
in so far as they assumed that medieval works of art
must necessarily differ stylistically from more recent
works. The critical historians of art worked towards
a theory in which older concepts adhèrent to the pla-
tonic tradition, like the concept of‘universal beauty’,
were neglected. The German romantics, for exam-
ple, still believed in ‘beauty’ as a constant idea that
could be perceived without rational reflection by any
human being. Probably even more important is the
fact that the outcome of the ‘Holbeinstreit’ was deci-
sively influenced by the visual arrangement of both
paintings in question in the context of a staged exhi-
bition of the works of Hans Holbein the Younger in
the mentioned Dresden gallery.* * * 5 On this occasion,
the gallery visitors could also compare the two paint-
ings in question with Raphael’s Sistine Madonna.
The hanging in this gallery resulted in a visual
arrangement apt to deconstruct the mere foundations
of romantic aesthetics. There is every reason to be-
lieve that the role of aesthetic expérience was of con-
sidérable importance not only to the outcome of this
particular debate. If towards the end of the 19th Cen-
tury a leading party of art historians supported the
restriction to a historical critical judgement, it was
not the exclusion of any aesthetic criticism that con-
stituted the identity of art history, but rather the join-
ing of historical and aesthetic criticism. It is on this
basis, I argue, that art history, since it was being in-
Beiheft, p. 87-100; BÄTSCHMANN, Oskar - GRIENER,
Pascal: Dze Darmstädter Madonna. Original gegen Fälschung,
Frankfurt a. M. 1998.
5 See HASKELL, Francis: The Ephemeral Museum. Old Master Pa-
intings and the Rise ofthe Art Exhibition. New Haven — London
2000, p. 91 : “this wasperhaps the first exhibition to bepromoted not
by a ktng or a group of noble collectons, a governement or an associa-
stalled as a discipline at academies of art, universities
and muséums took also an active part in the world of
artistic production, in the art trade, in the so-called
world of art (‘Kunstbetrieb’) right from the start.
Of course, what I am delineating here, as the ‘aes-
thetic interest’ of art historians is itself subject to con-
tinuons alteration. ‘Art historians’ like Johann
Joachim Winckelmann whom we would in our times
probably rather call an ‘archaeologist’, or Jakob
Burckhardt who actually was a ‘cultural historian’
might hâve had an aesthetic interest in a more nar-
row sense of the idea. They wanted to find out about
what ‘beauty’ is, and how, and when, and under what
circumstances it became materialized in the work of
art. A philosopher and literary critic like Friedrich
Schlegel tried to define the nature of a spécifie Ger-
man art by studying and comparing early ‘German’
painting (‘altdeutsche Malerei’) with the historical
development of the Italian ‘schools’ of painting. In
very different terms this same issue was of great in-
terest to the Swiss art historian Heinrich Wölfflin.
And if we go further and take into account the ‘aes-
thetic interest’ of Aby Warburg or Erwin Panofsky,
the development of art history as a profession with
its own méthodologies becomes apparent. Neither
Warburg nor Panofsky followed the tenets of art crit-
icism; instead both were trying to find out about the
role of ‘hidden’ concepts behind the visible pictures
rather than about ‘Art with a capital A’ (Kristeller).6
But even in these two cases we can recognize an in-
terest in the spécifie aesthetic nature of the objects
the scholars were concerned with. Warburg, for ex-
ample, tried to explain how irrational concepts were
brought under control if not even rationalized in the
realm of visual art.
Rationalisation after all, was considered to be the
main task of the art historian. The reason why many
art historians since the late 19th Century continuous-
ly denied their being involved in the process of artis-
tic production was probably their belief that ‘art’,
tion of artists, but by art-historical scholars”. This led to the great
Holbein-Exhibition that has to be called with Francis Haskell
one of the first ‘one man show of an Old Master’.
6 KRISTELLER, Paul Oskar: “The Modem System of the Arts.
A Study in the History of Aesthetics”. In:Journalofthe History
ofldeas, XII, 1951, p. 496-527 (Part I), and XIII, 1952, p.
17-46 (Part II). Quoted KRISTELLER 1951, p. 497
4