DOI article:
Zgórniak, Marek: "Dziełocentryzm" wobec faktów: O kilku interpretacjach obrazów Rodakowskiego i Mehoffera
DOI Page / Citation link: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.20621#0178
Przytoczone wyżej, zaczerpnięte z kilku publika-
cji przykłady pomyłek i zbłądzeń wskazują, że nad-
mierna koncentracja uwagi na dziełach, z pominię-
ciem historyczno-kulturowego kontekstu, stawia
badacza w trudnej sytuacji. Lekceważenie źródeł
i zaniedbanie ich krytyki wytrąca mu z rąk podsta-
wowe narzędzia, nie sprzyja prawdziwemu pozna-
niu obrazu i powoduje, że publikowane wywody
niewiele mają wspólnego z nauką. Pozostaną więc
przede wszystkim świadectwem swych czasów, nie
przybliżając nas, lecz oddalając od zrozumienia
skomplikowanej materii sztuki.
“ Image-Centred” Approach vs. Facts. On Some Interpretations of RodakowskPs
AND MEHOFFER’S PAINTINGS
The author, referring to methodological discussions con-
ducted by historians of literaturę, reflects on the problem of un-
verifiable theories and overinterpretations in the contemporary
study of art. As an illustration, he lists Michael Brotje’s publica-
tions (fashionable in Poland), which contain extended analyses
that — as a rule — take no account of the artist’s intention or of
the work’s historical background, sometimes ignoring even the
chronological seąuence of events. The author considers Brotje’s
assumptions as too arbitrary: they are impossible to corroborate
and impervious to falsification (in the Popperian sense). It re-
mains unclear which facts could eventually contradict them.
Similar phenomena have recently occurred in Polish publications.
The proposals contained in them are true only in a ‘consensual’
way: they are positively evaluated in certain milieus of speciał-
ists, even though they happen to contradict the testimony of
sources and generał knowledge. In the author’s opinion, the for-
mulation of radically new (though not necessarily reasonable)
interpretations is given a boost by the battle for recognition
among scholars. In Polish research on art the strategy of
overinterpretation sometimes results in local success, while the
lack of schołarly debate reinforces this situation.
The author points to dangers of overinterpretation through
the example of studies by two art historians from the Poznań
circłe devoted to Polish painting in the 2nd half of the 19th century.
He claims that their concentration on certain arbitrarily selected
visual aspects of the discussed paintings results in exaggerated
subjectivity in their arguments. The rules and stages of source
analysis are neglected in what concerns not only the work of art
itself, but also the related sources. The written sources which
could prove helpful e. g. in the reconstruction of the circum-
stances in which pictures originated are often overlooked, and
so the painting analysed out of the historical and artistic context
falls prey to the interpreters unbridłed activity. Instead of his-
torical thinking about a work of art, the authors present their
deepened impressions, which cannot be accepted as schołarly
statements.
cji przykłady pomyłek i zbłądzeń wskazują, że nad-
mierna koncentracja uwagi na dziełach, z pominię-
ciem historyczno-kulturowego kontekstu, stawia
badacza w trudnej sytuacji. Lekceważenie źródeł
i zaniedbanie ich krytyki wytrąca mu z rąk podsta-
wowe narzędzia, nie sprzyja prawdziwemu pozna-
niu obrazu i powoduje, że publikowane wywody
niewiele mają wspólnego z nauką. Pozostaną więc
przede wszystkim świadectwem swych czasów, nie
przybliżając nas, lecz oddalając od zrozumienia
skomplikowanej materii sztuki.
“ Image-Centred” Approach vs. Facts. On Some Interpretations of RodakowskPs
AND MEHOFFER’S PAINTINGS
The author, referring to methodological discussions con-
ducted by historians of literaturę, reflects on the problem of un-
verifiable theories and overinterpretations in the contemporary
study of art. As an illustration, he lists Michael Brotje’s publica-
tions (fashionable in Poland), which contain extended analyses
that — as a rule — take no account of the artist’s intention or of
the work’s historical background, sometimes ignoring even the
chronological seąuence of events. The author considers Brotje’s
assumptions as too arbitrary: they are impossible to corroborate
and impervious to falsification (in the Popperian sense). It re-
mains unclear which facts could eventually contradict them.
Similar phenomena have recently occurred in Polish publications.
The proposals contained in them are true only in a ‘consensual’
way: they are positively evaluated in certain milieus of speciał-
ists, even though they happen to contradict the testimony of
sources and generał knowledge. In the author’s opinion, the for-
mulation of radically new (though not necessarily reasonable)
interpretations is given a boost by the battle for recognition
among scholars. In Polish research on art the strategy of
overinterpretation sometimes results in local success, while the
lack of schołarly debate reinforces this situation.
The author points to dangers of overinterpretation through
the example of studies by two art historians from the Poznań
circłe devoted to Polish painting in the 2nd half of the 19th century.
He claims that their concentration on certain arbitrarily selected
visual aspects of the discussed paintings results in exaggerated
subjectivity in their arguments. The rules and stages of source
analysis are neglected in what concerns not only the work of art
itself, but also the related sources. The written sources which
could prove helpful e. g. in the reconstruction of the circum-
stances in which pictures originated are often overlooked, and
so the painting analysed out of the historical and artistic context
falls prey to the interpreters unbridłed activity. Instead of his-
torical thinking about a work of art, the authors present their
deepened impressions, which cannot be accepted as schołarly
statements.