DOI article:
Sabrina Raphaela Buebl: Defining a Discipline: Kunstgeschichtliche Anzeigen as a Critical Organ for the Vienna School
DOI Page / Citation link:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.73804#0053
52
Dvorak referred to the activity undertaken by him and
Franz Wickhoff since the final months of 1902 of found-
ing a critical journal that could review publications in the
field of art history. The project took name under the title
Kunstgeschichtliche Anzeigen. The term Anzeige can mean
either notice or 'advertisement' but also 'report' or even
complaint'. Cleary, it is the function of Anzeige as a notice
that should give meaning to the title of this journal,4 but -
sarcastically speaking - in the case of some highly critical
reviews a denunciatory interpretation would also suit per-
fectly. The KA appeared quarterly from 1904 to 1909, with
a break in 1908, as an appendix to the official organ of the
Institut fur Osterreichische Geschichtsforschung (IÓG),
the Mittheilungen, where Wickhoff held the chair of art
history. After Wickhoff's death in April 1909, the journal
continued to appear under Dvorak's editorship until 1913.
In the interwar period, another journal focused on meth-
odology appeared: Kritische Berichte zur kunstgeschich-
tlichen Literatur, published from 1927 to 1937 and edited
by Rudolf Kautzsch, Wilhelm Pinder, Georg Swarzenski
(who contributed seven reviews in the first three volumes
of the KA) and Karl Maria Swoboda, a former student
Dvorak's. In his introductory words to the first volume of
this successor, Pinder underlined the intention to ideo-
logically continue the purpose of the KA:
Since the Viennese Kunstgeschichtliche Anzeigen do
not exist anymore, we no longer have an organ whose
sole purpose is the self-criticism of art history as a scien-
ce. [...] Today, we see neither the danger recognised by
Wickhoff nor that by Dvorak as having been elimina-
ted.5
In its final incarnation, Karl M. Swoboda attempted to
restore the magazine in 1955, editing it for seven volumes
until 1965.
When the journal was founded, art history as a di-
scipline could already look back at about fifty years of
so viel getan wie Sie, zweitens ist es aber meines Erachtens gar
nicht notwendig[,] dass sich ein Recensent durch eigene gros-
se Arbeiten den Rechtstitel fur seinen Beruf erwirbt, ebenso wie
ein Recensent in der schonen Literatur nicht selbst ein Dichter
sein muss. Es genugt[,] wenn er uber methodische Schulung ver-
fugt und in dieser Beziehung dem besprochenen Buche souver-
en [sic!] gegenuber steht. Ich bin ubrigens uberzeugt, dass die Sa-
che[,] einmal in Gang gebracht[,] von selbst laufen wird und zum
wirklichen wissenschaftlichen Centrum wird.'
4 Considering the use of the term on other occasions, as for the title
of the influential Gottingsche Gelehrte Anzeigen.
5 'Seit die Wiener Kunstgeschichtlichen Anzeigen nicht mehr be-
stehen, besitzen wir kein Organ, dessen ausschlieElicher Zweck
in der Selbstkritik der Kunstgeschichte als Wissenschaft gelegen
ware. [...] Wir sehen heute weder jene von Wickhoff, noch diese
von Dvorak erkannte Gefahr als beseitig an.' W. Pinder, 'Einlei-
tende Worte', in Kritische Berichte zur kunstgeschichtlichen Litera-
tur, vol. 1, ed. R. Kautzsch et al., Leipzig 1927, pp. 1-2.
practical experience,6 but it still had to struggle with con-
tamination through lack of methodological coherency,
nationalistic intentions in defining the evolution of ar-
tistic creation, and amateurish interference disguised as
professional contributions. By 1902, Franz Wickhoff and
Alois Riegl held the two chairs of art history at the IÓG,
where an increasing number of history students dedicated
their research to art history, which was in the process of li-
berating itself from the function of mere auxiliary science.
Turning their gaze towards the more consolidated Geschi-
chtswissenschaft, the art historians at the Viennese Uni-
versity also longed for a profound and secure method. To
disseminate their vision of a methodologically stable pra-
xis the scholars needed an official organ through which
they could communicate their ideas on art-historical re-
search, its method, and instruments as well as to separate
good from bad examples. It is in this context, that Dvorak
on 23 December 1902 wrote to Wickhoff:
When I was with Riegl last week, we also talked about
the prevalence of dilettantism in art history and since
I am convinced that the conditions in political history
are better only thanks to the generally practised critical
supervision of production, it occurred to me that a cri-
tical organ published in Vienna could improve many
things. It was only through the bella diplomatica under
Sickel that the Monumenta [Germaniae Historical beca-
me what they are today, and in the art-historical reviews,
as in the Repertorium [fur Kunstwissenschaft], the pa-
pers are mostly a matter of favours. Now, a critical organ
would not have to be founded in Vienna. The institu-
tional publications could be used for this purpose. [...]
It would be of great advantage if the scientific nature of
the art-historical production could be strictly monito-
red from Vienna, where there is such a large number of
suitable contributors.7
6 On the institutionalisation process see W. Beyrodt, 'Kunst-
geschichte als Universitatsfach', in Kunst und Kunsttheorie
1400-1900, ed. P. Ganz et al., Wiesbaden 1991, pp. 313-333; and B.
vom Brocke, 'Wege aus der Krise. Universitats-Seminar, Aka-
demie-Kommission oder Forschungs-Institut? Institutionalisie-
rungsbestreben in den Geistes- und Naturwissenschaften und in
der Kunstgeschichte vor und nach 1900', in Storia dell'arte e politi-
ca culturale intorno al 1900. La fondazione dell'Istituto Germanico
di Storia dell'Arte di Firenze. Per i cento anni dalla fondazione del
Kunsthistorisches Institut in Florenz. Firenze, 21-24 maggio 1997,
ed. M. Seidl, Venice 1999, pp. 179-222.
7 'Als ich vorige Woche bei Riegl gewesen bin[,] sprachen wir auch
von dem Ub erhandnehmen des Dilettantismus in der Kunstge-
schichte und da ich uberzeugt bin, dass die Verhaltnisse in der
politischen Geschichtswissenschaft nur dank der allgemein geub-
ten kritischen Uberwachung der Production besser sind, fiel mir
ein[,] dass ein in Wien erscheinendes kritisches Organ vieles bes-
sern konnte. Erst durch die bella diplomatica unter Sickel sind
die Monumenta zu dem geworden, was sie heute sind[,] und in
den kunstgeschichtlichen Revuen[,] z.B. im Repertorium[,] sind
die Referate zumeist Gefalligkeitssache. Nun musste jedoch in
Dvorak referred to the activity undertaken by him and
Franz Wickhoff since the final months of 1902 of found-
ing a critical journal that could review publications in the
field of art history. The project took name under the title
Kunstgeschichtliche Anzeigen. The term Anzeige can mean
either notice or 'advertisement' but also 'report' or even
complaint'. Cleary, it is the function of Anzeige as a notice
that should give meaning to the title of this journal,4 but -
sarcastically speaking - in the case of some highly critical
reviews a denunciatory interpretation would also suit per-
fectly. The KA appeared quarterly from 1904 to 1909, with
a break in 1908, as an appendix to the official organ of the
Institut fur Osterreichische Geschichtsforschung (IÓG),
the Mittheilungen, where Wickhoff held the chair of art
history. After Wickhoff's death in April 1909, the journal
continued to appear under Dvorak's editorship until 1913.
In the interwar period, another journal focused on meth-
odology appeared: Kritische Berichte zur kunstgeschich-
tlichen Literatur, published from 1927 to 1937 and edited
by Rudolf Kautzsch, Wilhelm Pinder, Georg Swarzenski
(who contributed seven reviews in the first three volumes
of the KA) and Karl Maria Swoboda, a former student
Dvorak's. In his introductory words to the first volume of
this successor, Pinder underlined the intention to ideo-
logically continue the purpose of the KA:
Since the Viennese Kunstgeschichtliche Anzeigen do
not exist anymore, we no longer have an organ whose
sole purpose is the self-criticism of art history as a scien-
ce. [...] Today, we see neither the danger recognised by
Wickhoff nor that by Dvorak as having been elimina-
ted.5
In its final incarnation, Karl M. Swoboda attempted to
restore the magazine in 1955, editing it for seven volumes
until 1965.
When the journal was founded, art history as a di-
scipline could already look back at about fifty years of
so viel getan wie Sie, zweitens ist es aber meines Erachtens gar
nicht notwendig[,] dass sich ein Recensent durch eigene gros-
se Arbeiten den Rechtstitel fur seinen Beruf erwirbt, ebenso wie
ein Recensent in der schonen Literatur nicht selbst ein Dichter
sein muss. Es genugt[,] wenn er uber methodische Schulung ver-
fugt und in dieser Beziehung dem besprochenen Buche souver-
en [sic!] gegenuber steht. Ich bin ubrigens uberzeugt, dass die Sa-
che[,] einmal in Gang gebracht[,] von selbst laufen wird und zum
wirklichen wissenschaftlichen Centrum wird.'
4 Considering the use of the term on other occasions, as for the title
of the influential Gottingsche Gelehrte Anzeigen.
5 'Seit die Wiener Kunstgeschichtlichen Anzeigen nicht mehr be-
stehen, besitzen wir kein Organ, dessen ausschlieElicher Zweck
in der Selbstkritik der Kunstgeschichte als Wissenschaft gelegen
ware. [...] Wir sehen heute weder jene von Wickhoff, noch diese
von Dvorak erkannte Gefahr als beseitig an.' W. Pinder, 'Einlei-
tende Worte', in Kritische Berichte zur kunstgeschichtlichen Litera-
tur, vol. 1, ed. R. Kautzsch et al., Leipzig 1927, pp. 1-2.
practical experience,6 but it still had to struggle with con-
tamination through lack of methodological coherency,
nationalistic intentions in defining the evolution of ar-
tistic creation, and amateurish interference disguised as
professional contributions. By 1902, Franz Wickhoff and
Alois Riegl held the two chairs of art history at the IÓG,
where an increasing number of history students dedicated
their research to art history, which was in the process of li-
berating itself from the function of mere auxiliary science.
Turning their gaze towards the more consolidated Geschi-
chtswissenschaft, the art historians at the Viennese Uni-
versity also longed for a profound and secure method. To
disseminate their vision of a methodologically stable pra-
xis the scholars needed an official organ through which
they could communicate their ideas on art-historical re-
search, its method, and instruments as well as to separate
good from bad examples. It is in this context, that Dvorak
on 23 December 1902 wrote to Wickhoff:
When I was with Riegl last week, we also talked about
the prevalence of dilettantism in art history and since
I am convinced that the conditions in political history
are better only thanks to the generally practised critical
supervision of production, it occurred to me that a cri-
tical organ published in Vienna could improve many
things. It was only through the bella diplomatica under
Sickel that the Monumenta [Germaniae Historical beca-
me what they are today, and in the art-historical reviews,
as in the Repertorium [fur Kunstwissenschaft], the pa-
pers are mostly a matter of favours. Now, a critical organ
would not have to be founded in Vienna. The institu-
tional publications could be used for this purpose. [...]
It would be of great advantage if the scientific nature of
the art-historical production could be strictly monito-
red from Vienna, where there is such a large number of
suitable contributors.7
6 On the institutionalisation process see W. Beyrodt, 'Kunst-
geschichte als Universitatsfach', in Kunst und Kunsttheorie
1400-1900, ed. P. Ganz et al., Wiesbaden 1991, pp. 313-333; and B.
vom Brocke, 'Wege aus der Krise. Universitats-Seminar, Aka-
demie-Kommission oder Forschungs-Institut? Institutionalisie-
rungsbestreben in den Geistes- und Naturwissenschaften und in
der Kunstgeschichte vor und nach 1900', in Storia dell'arte e politi-
ca culturale intorno al 1900. La fondazione dell'Istituto Germanico
di Storia dell'Arte di Firenze. Per i cento anni dalla fondazione del
Kunsthistorisches Institut in Florenz. Firenze, 21-24 maggio 1997,
ed. M. Seidl, Venice 1999, pp. 179-222.
7 'Als ich vorige Woche bei Riegl gewesen bin[,] sprachen wir auch
von dem Ub erhandnehmen des Dilettantismus in der Kunstge-
schichte und da ich uberzeugt bin, dass die Verhaltnisse in der
politischen Geschichtswissenschaft nur dank der allgemein geub-
ten kritischen Uberwachung der Production besser sind, fiel mir
ein[,] dass ein in Wien erscheinendes kritisches Organ vieles bes-
sern konnte. Erst durch die bella diplomatica unter Sickel sind
die Monumenta zu dem geworden, was sie heute sind[,] und in
den kunstgeschichtlichen Revuen[,] z.B. im Repertorium[,] sind
die Referate zumeist Gefalligkeitssache. Nun musste jedoch in