DOI Heft:
Nr. 1
DOI Artikel:Woodfield, Richard: Ernst Gombrich and Max Dvořák
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.31179#0138
the effects that they did. The pendulum had swung
from connoisseurship, which was dominant when he
arrived in the UK, to the New Art History:
"7 TTč' /o 7Wf<? ho/hho/7 <?/ T?f7 T/Wry, Ty
TfTAT 7 777^77 ho 77777/ A'A yp o/?
77 7^77yf777 /o roAA T/Wry of 7f <9777^77 1 r/WAr or o/Třf 7T/77yr - 7
7fT777/ /O /T77(97f 77^7?/ DfToA AA 77Aí*77 TřpA777A AA."^
At hrst sight this might be taken to refer to the
craft of painting, which it does, but it also refers to
the language of painting, Schloss erb 7f7777#jpmrTo.
One needs to extend the study of "Light, Form
and Texture in Fifteenth-Century Painting"^' into
seventeenth-century Holland to encompass the
magical visual effects produced by Dutch artists.
Instead of treating a stydě as somethmg that speaks
of an epoch, one has to examine the practice of a
style as something that answers to the contingent
demands of a situation. There is no necessary con-
nection between either the style of a painting and a
metaphysical essence of its epoch or the style of a
painting and anterior styles: necessity is not a regula-
tive concept in history.
To address the larger matter of culture, although
there is a web of connections between States of af-
fairs at various points m history, there is no necessary
connection between them. Whilst certain historians
may use the metaphor of "organicity", Gombrich
prefers the metaphor of "turbulence". Any number
of factors enter into the hnal shape of a work of
art but they are the resuit of multiple contingencies.
Another metaphor that might be called mto play is
the "butterhy effect", well know to chaos theorists.
In a conversation with the cultural historian Peter
Burke, Gombrich pointed out that successful art
typically has a variety of functions and to start with
those functions is more productive than to start with
an assumed In the latter context, he did
Michael Podro in Conversation with Sir Ernst Gombrich. In:
H/wA, December 1989, pp. 373-378, here p. 374.
53 Title of a paper republished in GOMBRICH, E. H.: T/h
TLA^y A HpřZU. Oxford 1976.
"3 The Gombrich Archive, http://gombricharchive.hles.word-
press.com/2011/04/showdocl 9.pdf, accessed 20. 8. 2011.
not deny that there were such thmgs as 77?(?77/77T*/7'<?.f but
suggested that the most profitable place to look for
them would be in the direction of role play and the
syndrome, a topíc that he took further in "Style of
Art and Styles of Life"."* Rather than assume a unity
of thought in a period, a ZA/yW/, it is more useful to
thinks in terms of a plurality of behaviours rehecting
a variety of beliefs, behaviours and attitudes. Whilst
it is true that within social life there are pressures
for conformity these can resuit in contrary and con-
Hicted behaviours. We are sensitive to such conhicts
in our own lives. Though they might disappear in the
mists of time, there is no reason to assume that that
the past can be characterised us unconhicted totali-
ties. In this respect Gombrich was right to complain
of the physiognomie fallacy:
"71& /Ar? 7fTAT 777(9^7 0/ 77i /Tf/^ 0/ AÎ<?AAT777 FAf^Tť
h fo/WfíA 77777/ T<97f ro/Affr/, Ty /T77/ pAGA*
/TroyyT 77 rw/T/Ty /WArT/pf 7fTAT fWoyyy (Ay-
yyT'p77A/A 777 /T<? iAWfA 1UA 7f 077Ay/777/ 7/ Mry,
TpW ^ 717/7/ H ^7^777777 77777/ 7/1* 1*07177777 7(9 /TA/T
o/ 77Wy A/Af^T? 777 ByyT777/A777, Of 7fT(9 /TAG o/ T77yy77fr/
p077J*77T7/i 777 /To T/T7777/i'7X o/ Rj7To77i. Ko77770 7*77// /TA /9777/f77yy
/o roo /Tf p^r/ A /of/W y/ A Ty/ipT?/ rTy/? /To pTyr/^owA
p77Afy
If Dvořák had convinced Gombrich that "/To 7?f/
7p /Top77i/ (p/ôfoh 7777 7A7770A7770 T777(/ OJvWTTg 777*7*^1* 70 /To W777/
0/ Tyyo77<? TTgor", that conviction had evaporated by the
hme that he left Vienna. However, he continucd to be
preoccupied with understanding the art of the past
and how styles emerged. Ironically, the Anglophone
community has never properly understood or appre-
ciated the positive results of Gombrich's critique of
Dvořák, for the simple reason that it has never been
familiar with the Viennese art historian's work. To
understand an argument one has to understand the
opposing point of view and this never happened.
55 Republished in GOMBRICH, E. H.: TA LAt A G/zAt
A /A 3AA/ TWi/Af A Hf7 77/77/ UA/V G/WTwAzGw. London
1999, pp. 240-261.
55 GOMBRICH, E. H.: Art and Scholarship. In: GOMBRICH
1963 (see in note 25), p. 108.
136
from connoisseurship, which was dominant when he
arrived in the UK, to the New Art History:
"7 TTč' /o 7Wf<? ho/hho/7 <?/ T?f7 T/Wry, Ty
TfTAT 7 777^77 ho 77777/ A'A yp o/?
77 7^77yf777 /o roAA T/Wry of 7f <9777^77 1 r/WAr or o/Třf 7T/77yr - 7
7fT777/ /O /T77(97f 77^7?/ DfToA AA 77Aí*77 TřpA777A AA."^
At hrst sight this might be taken to refer to the
craft of painting, which it does, but it also refers to
the language of painting, Schloss erb 7f7777#jpmrTo.
One needs to extend the study of "Light, Form
and Texture in Fifteenth-Century Painting"^' into
seventeenth-century Holland to encompass the
magical visual effects produced by Dutch artists.
Instead of treating a stydě as somethmg that speaks
of an epoch, one has to examine the practice of a
style as something that answers to the contingent
demands of a situation. There is no necessary con-
nection between either the style of a painting and a
metaphysical essence of its epoch or the style of a
painting and anterior styles: necessity is not a regula-
tive concept in history.
To address the larger matter of culture, although
there is a web of connections between States of af-
fairs at various points m history, there is no necessary
connection between them. Whilst certain historians
may use the metaphor of "organicity", Gombrich
prefers the metaphor of "turbulence". Any number
of factors enter into the hnal shape of a work of
art but they are the resuit of multiple contingencies.
Another metaphor that might be called mto play is
the "butterhy effect", well know to chaos theorists.
In a conversation with the cultural historian Peter
Burke, Gombrich pointed out that successful art
typically has a variety of functions and to start with
those functions is more productive than to start with
an assumed In the latter context, he did
Michael Podro in Conversation with Sir Ernst Gombrich. In:
H/wA, December 1989, pp. 373-378, here p. 374.
53 Title of a paper republished in GOMBRICH, E. H.: T/h
TLA^y A HpřZU. Oxford 1976.
"3 The Gombrich Archive, http://gombricharchive.hles.word-
press.com/2011/04/showdocl 9.pdf, accessed 20. 8. 2011.
not deny that there were such thmgs as 77?(?77/77T*/7'<?.f but
suggested that the most profitable place to look for
them would be in the direction of role play and the
syndrome, a topíc that he took further in "Style of
Art and Styles of Life"."* Rather than assume a unity
of thought in a period, a ZA/yW/, it is more useful to
thinks in terms of a plurality of behaviours rehecting
a variety of beliefs, behaviours and attitudes. Whilst
it is true that within social life there are pressures
for conformity these can resuit in contrary and con-
Hicted behaviours. We are sensitive to such conhicts
in our own lives. Though they might disappear in the
mists of time, there is no reason to assume that that
the past can be characterised us unconhicted totali-
ties. In this respect Gombrich was right to complain
of the physiognomie fallacy:
"71& /Ar? 7fTAT 777(9^7 0/ 77i /Tf/^ 0/ AÎ<?AAT777 FAf^Tť
h fo/WfíA 77777/ T<97f ro/Affr/, Ty /T77/ pAGA*
/TroyyT 77 rw/T/Ty /WArT/pf 7fTAT fWoyyy (Ay-
yyT'p77A/A 777 /T<? iAWfA 1UA 7f 077Ay/777/ 7/ Mry,
TpW ^ 717/7/ H ^7^777777 77777/ 7/1* 1*07177777 7(9 /TA/T
o/ 77Wy A/Af^T? 777 ByyT777/A777, Of 7fT(9 /TAG o/ T77yy77fr/
p077J*77T7/i 777 /To T/T7777/i'7X o/ Rj7To77i. Ko77770 7*77// /TA /9777/f77yy
/o roo /Tf p^r/ A /of/W y/ A Ty/ipT?/ rTy/? /To pTyr/^owA
p77Afy
If Dvořák had convinced Gombrich that "/To 7?f/
7p /Top77i/ (p/ôfoh 7777 7A7770A7770 T777(/ OJvWTTg 777*7*^1* 70 /To W777/
0/ Tyyo77<? TTgor", that conviction had evaporated by the
hme that he left Vienna. However, he continucd to be
preoccupied with understanding the art of the past
and how styles emerged. Ironically, the Anglophone
community has never properly understood or appre-
ciated the positive results of Gombrich's critique of
Dvořák, for the simple reason that it has never been
familiar with the Viennese art historian's work. To
understand an argument one has to understand the
opposing point of view and this never happened.
55 Republished in GOMBRICH, E. H.: TA LAt A G/zAt
A /A 3AA/ TWi/Af A Hf7 77/77/ UA/V G/WTwAzGw. London
1999, pp. 240-261.
55 GOMBRICH, E. H.: Art and Scholarship. In: GOMBRICH
1963 (see in note 25), p. 108.
136