DOI Artikel:
Bakoš, Ján: Vienna School Disciples and "The New Tasks" of art history
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.52534#0149
ŠTÚDIE / ARTICLES
ARS 40, 2007, 2
Vienna School Disciples
and “The New Tasks” of Art History1
Ján BAKOŠ
The Habsburg Dilemma
The inner contradictions in Alois Riegl’s theoret-
ical views are quite well known: for example, the con-
tradiction between his belief in the continuity of évo-
lution on the one hand and the idea of deep changes
of "Kunstwollen'' (will to form or artistic intention) on
the other or between his objective scientism and his-
torical relativism.2 They cannot all be explained sa-
tisfactorily either as results of Riegl’s personal intel-
lectual évolution only or simply as an expression of
changes in the Fin-de-siècle Viennese intellectual
mentality.
Following Carl Schorske’s excellent analysis,3 the
turn from scientific rationalism to vitalism or spiritu-
alism can be regarded as the conséquence of the shift
of générations at the turn of the Century, or in other
words as the flight from the failed liberalism of the
fathers to the new irrationalism, intolérance and be-
lief in metaphysics on the side of the sons and grand-
sons. In that context Riegl’s position can be located
between optimistic and rationalist liberalism and
1 The essay represents a modified version of the paper "The Vien-
na School of Art History and the Idea of 'Kunstlandschaft’
read at the Thirtieth International Congress of the History of
Art, London, 3 — 8 September 2000, Section 1 "Time and
Place. The Geohistory of Art”.
2 See BAKOŠ, J.: The Vienna Schoofs Views of the Structure
of the Art Historical Process. In: Wien und die Entwicklung der
kunsthistorischen Methode. Akten des XXV. Internationalen
Kongresses für Kunstgeschichte, Wien, 4. — 10. September
1983. Wien-Köln-Graz 1984, Vol. 1, pp. 117-119.
militant irrational nationalism. Such a position can
be characterized as Fin-de-siècle pessimistic Modern-
ism.4 In spite of this, some of the crucial contradic-
tions in Riegl’s theory can be characterized as perma-
nent and simultaneous antinomies in his theory rath-
er than as conséquences of historical changes.
Similarly, the methodological différences within
the Vienna art history at the turn of Century, includ-
ing the views of Josef Strzygowski, cannot be ex-
plained purely psychologically as conséquences of
personal aversions. Dialectical polarities referring to
the notion of art and its history as expression versus
autonomy, spiritualism versus evolutionism or trans-
cendental individualism versus impersonal determin-
ism can be regarded rather as sublimations of the his-
torical, cultural, ideological and even political ten-
sions of that time. It is true, that the late Max Dvořák
and the old Julius Schlosser, when confronted with
the changed situation in the post war period had to
transform Riegl’s theoretical legacy. In contrast, Strzy-
gowski’s severe criticism of the Vienna School, his
rejection of its linear notion of history, the merciless
3 SCHORSKE, C. E.: Pin-de-si'ecle Vienna. Politics and Culture.
New York 1981; SCHORSKE, C. E.: Austrian Aesthetic Cul-
ture 1870 - 1914. A Historian’s Reflection. In: Wien und die
Entwicklung der kunsthistorischen Methode. Akten des XXV. In-
ternationalen Kongresses für Kunstgeschichte, Wien, 4. - 10.
September 1983. Wien — Köln - Graz 1984, Vol. 9, Eröff-
nungs- und Plenarvorträge, pp. 27-40.
4 SAUERLÄNDER, W.: Alois Riegl und die Entstehung der
autonomen Kunstgeschichte am Fin de siècle. In: Pin de Siècle.
Zur Literatur und Kunst der Jahrhundertwende. Eds. R. BAUER
- E. HEFTRICH - H. KOOPMANN - W. RASCH - W.
SAUERLÄNDER - A. SCHMOLL gen. EISENWERTH.
Frankfurt a. M. 1977, pp. 125-139-
145
ARS 40, 2007, 2
Vienna School Disciples
and “The New Tasks” of Art History1
Ján BAKOŠ
The Habsburg Dilemma
The inner contradictions in Alois Riegl’s theoret-
ical views are quite well known: for example, the con-
tradiction between his belief in the continuity of évo-
lution on the one hand and the idea of deep changes
of "Kunstwollen'' (will to form or artistic intention) on
the other or between his objective scientism and his-
torical relativism.2 They cannot all be explained sa-
tisfactorily either as results of Riegl’s personal intel-
lectual évolution only or simply as an expression of
changes in the Fin-de-siècle Viennese intellectual
mentality.
Following Carl Schorske’s excellent analysis,3 the
turn from scientific rationalism to vitalism or spiritu-
alism can be regarded as the conséquence of the shift
of générations at the turn of the Century, or in other
words as the flight from the failed liberalism of the
fathers to the new irrationalism, intolérance and be-
lief in metaphysics on the side of the sons and grand-
sons. In that context Riegl’s position can be located
between optimistic and rationalist liberalism and
1 The essay represents a modified version of the paper "The Vien-
na School of Art History and the Idea of 'Kunstlandschaft’
read at the Thirtieth International Congress of the History of
Art, London, 3 — 8 September 2000, Section 1 "Time and
Place. The Geohistory of Art”.
2 See BAKOŠ, J.: The Vienna Schoofs Views of the Structure
of the Art Historical Process. In: Wien und die Entwicklung der
kunsthistorischen Methode. Akten des XXV. Internationalen
Kongresses für Kunstgeschichte, Wien, 4. — 10. September
1983. Wien-Köln-Graz 1984, Vol. 1, pp. 117-119.
militant irrational nationalism. Such a position can
be characterized as Fin-de-siècle pessimistic Modern-
ism.4 In spite of this, some of the crucial contradic-
tions in Riegl’s theory can be characterized as perma-
nent and simultaneous antinomies in his theory rath-
er than as conséquences of historical changes.
Similarly, the methodological différences within
the Vienna art history at the turn of Century, includ-
ing the views of Josef Strzygowski, cannot be ex-
plained purely psychologically as conséquences of
personal aversions. Dialectical polarities referring to
the notion of art and its history as expression versus
autonomy, spiritualism versus evolutionism or trans-
cendental individualism versus impersonal determin-
ism can be regarded rather as sublimations of the his-
torical, cultural, ideological and even political ten-
sions of that time. It is true, that the late Max Dvořák
and the old Julius Schlosser, when confronted with
the changed situation in the post war period had to
transform Riegl’s theoretical legacy. In contrast, Strzy-
gowski’s severe criticism of the Vienna School, his
rejection of its linear notion of history, the merciless
3 SCHORSKE, C. E.: Pin-de-si'ecle Vienna. Politics and Culture.
New York 1981; SCHORSKE, C. E.: Austrian Aesthetic Cul-
ture 1870 - 1914. A Historian’s Reflection. In: Wien und die
Entwicklung der kunsthistorischen Methode. Akten des XXV. In-
ternationalen Kongresses für Kunstgeschichte, Wien, 4. - 10.
September 1983. Wien — Köln - Graz 1984, Vol. 9, Eröff-
nungs- und Plenarvorträge, pp. 27-40.
4 SAUERLÄNDER, W.: Alois Riegl und die Entstehung der
autonomen Kunstgeschichte am Fin de siècle. In: Pin de Siècle.
Zur Literatur und Kunst der Jahrhundertwende. Eds. R. BAUER
- E. HEFTRICH - H. KOOPMANN - W. RASCH - W.
SAUERLÄNDER - A. SCHMOLL gen. EISENWERTH.
Frankfurt a. M. 1977, pp. 125-139-
145