DOI Heft:
Rozprawy
DOI Artikel:Piotrowski, Piotr: O "dwóch głosach historii sztuki"
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.28196#0216
214
PIOTR PIOTROWSKI
analysis which may become a starting point for a project of the “other art historyk’ is
the Interpol exhibition (Stockholm, 1996), where Oleg Kulik, impersonating in his
performance a dog, assaulted the audience, while another Russian artist, Alexander
Brener, destroyed the works of Wendy Gu, an American artist of Chinese origin.
Both incidents madę Western artists and art critics yiolently attack Eastern Euro-
peans for their alleged barbarism. Their reaction included arguments for the orien-
talization of Eastern Europę. An attempt to defend the Eastern part of the continent
against such an essentialist strategy provokes a ąuestion about the concept of the
identity of Eastern Europę and the construction of its historico-artistic narrative
both before and after 1989.
The methodological perspective of writing the “other art history” has been de-
termined by the studies of Irit Rogoff, particularly by her idea of “relational geo-
graphy” which provides and alternative to the traditional “Kunstgeographie.” The
“relational geography,” which can be also called “critical,” just like other critical
discourses of art history, such as feminism, ąueer theory, and yisual cultural studies,
stems from the concept of “cultural difference.” Thanks to this concept, one may
analyze the politics of the identity of specific social and ethnic groups, which are not
inherently coherent. Thus, it is a method which highlights incoherence, the internal
dynamie, and the heterogeneity of the subject - its cumulative character in reference
to its location, but at the same time it rejects the subjecfs essentialization and the
idea of “genius loci”
This perspective makes it possible to pursue a project of the “other art history,”
based on the following three premises:
- rejecting not only the Western canon of the modern and contemporary art, but
also the option of establishing such a canon for Eastern Europę in favor of respecting
the “multivocality’ of the historico-artistic narrative of that region;
-rejecting the stylistic paradigm developed by the Western art history as use-
less in respect to the artistic materiał under scrutiny (and dubious also as regards
the art history of classic modernism);
- adopting the perspective of considerable cultural and political differentiation
of Eastern Europę, and by the same token rejecting a belief of art historians in the
West that the region was politically homogeneous both under the communist rule
and after 1989.
In conclusion the author makes a statement, which actually opposes some con-
temporary art historians who think in terms of European integration, that in tune
with Hans Belting’s claim about the coexistence of “two voices of art history” scholars
ought to maintain, reveal and (re) construct the cultural difference between East and
West in the historico-artistic practice.
PIOTR PIOTROWSKI
analysis which may become a starting point for a project of the “other art historyk’ is
the Interpol exhibition (Stockholm, 1996), where Oleg Kulik, impersonating in his
performance a dog, assaulted the audience, while another Russian artist, Alexander
Brener, destroyed the works of Wendy Gu, an American artist of Chinese origin.
Both incidents madę Western artists and art critics yiolently attack Eastern Euro-
peans for their alleged barbarism. Their reaction included arguments for the orien-
talization of Eastern Europę. An attempt to defend the Eastern part of the continent
against such an essentialist strategy provokes a ąuestion about the concept of the
identity of Eastern Europę and the construction of its historico-artistic narrative
both before and after 1989.
The methodological perspective of writing the “other art history” has been de-
termined by the studies of Irit Rogoff, particularly by her idea of “relational geo-
graphy” which provides and alternative to the traditional “Kunstgeographie.” The
“relational geography,” which can be also called “critical,” just like other critical
discourses of art history, such as feminism, ąueer theory, and yisual cultural studies,
stems from the concept of “cultural difference.” Thanks to this concept, one may
analyze the politics of the identity of specific social and ethnic groups, which are not
inherently coherent. Thus, it is a method which highlights incoherence, the internal
dynamie, and the heterogeneity of the subject - its cumulative character in reference
to its location, but at the same time it rejects the subjecfs essentialization and the
idea of “genius loci”
This perspective makes it possible to pursue a project of the “other art history,”
based on the following three premises:
- rejecting not only the Western canon of the modern and contemporary art, but
also the option of establishing such a canon for Eastern Europę in favor of respecting
the “multivocality’ of the historico-artistic narrative of that region;
-rejecting the stylistic paradigm developed by the Western art history as use-
less in respect to the artistic materiał under scrutiny (and dubious also as regards
the art history of classic modernism);
- adopting the perspective of considerable cultural and political differentiation
of Eastern Europę, and by the same token rejecting a belief of art historians in the
West that the region was politically homogeneous both under the communist rule
and after 1989.
In conclusion the author makes a statement, which actually opposes some con-
temporary art historians who think in terms of European integration, that in tune
with Hans Belting’s claim about the coexistence of “two voices of art history” scholars
ought to maintain, reveal and (re) construct the cultural difference between East and
West in the historico-artistic practice.