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#0054
53
The main task of the publication thus becomes clear
in these words: monitoring, supervision, and control of
the methodical application of art-historical research are
the purposes that the periodical should fulfil. Only three
weeks later, on 14 January 1903, Dvorak already had the
scheme of the first issue sent to his former teacher. It sho-
uld contain five reviews, two by Wickhoff, two by Dvorak,
and one by Wolfgang Kallab, but until they were published
another year had to pass. Only in August 1903 did Dvorak
nominate the KA again in a letter, asking if it wouldn't be
possible to continue working on the critical supplement
to the Mittheilungen. And, finally, on 5 September he wro-
te from Roudnice: 'I am very pleased that the journal is
coming to life. I hope it will be good, and I will do whate-
ver I possibly can with great pleasure.'8
During the following winter, in which Wickhoff had
headed off on a long excursion to Greece, Turkey and
Egypt, Dvorak was occupied with the organisation of the
journal: choosing the reviews, writing to the individual
contributors, conceptualising the typographic formatting
of the articles with the university publisher Wagner in
Innsbruck, making budget calculations, and so on. Due
to Wickhoff's absence in this period, this process is very
well documented by the correspondence between the two.
A very interesting aspect is the choice of academics
they wanted to invite to contribute. Among these were
not only Wickhoff's own pupils and Dvorak's direct col-
leagues from Vienna, such as the above mentioned Kal-
lab, Hans Tietze, Gustav Gluck and Friedrich Dornhoffer
(to mention just a few of the first contributors) but also
the German art historians Georg Swarzenski and Adolph
Goldschmidt, who were both positively reviewed in the
first issue and contributed to the first volume. But still,
until 1909 most reviews were written by Wickhoff him-
self, who contributed 42 times, followed by his assistant
Tietze with 22 and Dvorak with 19 reviews. Out of the 27
writers in total, the majority can be counted as pupils of
the Vienna School, while only seven contributors came
from other universities. Besides Goldschmidt and Swa-
rzenski, there were Cornelis Hofstede de Groot, Ray-
mond Koechlin, Friedrich Rintelen, Frida Schottmuller,
and Wilhelm Voge. Only Swarzenski and Rintelen contri-
buted several reviews (respectively seven and six), while
the others made only one contribution, most of them in
the first three volumes. About the involvement of 'reichs-
deutsche colleagues, Dvorak wrote:
Wien ein kritisches Organ nicht erst begrundet werden. Es konn-
ten dazu die Institutionsmittheilungen verwendet werden. Es
ware von grossem Vorteil[,] wenn man von Wien aus, wo es eine
so grosse Anzahl geeigneter Mitarbeiter gibt, die Wissenschaft-
lichkeit der kunstgeschichtlichen Production streng uberwachen
konnte.'
8 'Es freut mich riesig, dass die Zeitung zu Stande kommt. Ich hof-
fe[,] sie wird gut werden, was in meinen Kraften nur steht, will ich
mit grosser Freude einsetzen.'
A misunderstanding about the tendency of the journal
is also excluded by the content of the other reviews and
that this tendency is shared and approved by serious pe-
ople is clear from the letters that Goldschmidt and Swa-
rzenski wrote to me. We have nothing at all to do with
people who do not approve of this tendency, they are the
ones we must fight.9
His selection criteria were therefore not so much rela-
ted to an academic's provenance as to his methodological
approach.10
THE CONCEPT
OF WISSENSCHAFTLICHKEIT
But what precisely was this tendency, this Wissenschaft-
lichkeit that was always referred to? It is well explained
in the introduction written by Franz Wickhoff on the oc-
casion of the first issue and structured as a letter An die
Leser." In this brief introduction, Wickhoff directly clari-
fied which principles he and his colleagues followed, and
which were to be rejected.12 At first, he highlighted the in-
terrelation of the group of art historians who studied at
the IÓG and the fact that their shared intention, no matter
how different the precise fields of study may be, was the
same: to position art history among the other historical
sciences by treating the subject scientifically. For that, as
Wickhoff wrote, had by no means happened yet. Collea-
gues from the historical or linguistic fields didn't take art
historians seriously and Wickhoff could not blame them
because in no other discipline could such unscientific
and confused writings be published or accepted as hap-
pened in art history. These circumstances made it clear
that orientation is lacking, that no path leads through the
9 'Ein Misverstandnis [sic!] uber die Tendenz der Zeitschrift ist
auch durch den Inhalt der sonstigen Recensionen ausgeschlos-
sen und dass diese Tendenz von ernsten Leuten geteilt und gebil-
ligt wird, geht aus den Briefen hervor, die mir Goldschmidt und
Swarzenski geschrieben haben. Leute[,] die diese Tendenz nicht
billigt [sic!], mit denen haben wir uberhaupt nichts zu tun, das
sind eben die, die wir bekampfen mussen.' Letter from 14 Janu-
ary 1903.
10 The problem lies rather in the appalled reaction of some German
academics to the crude tone of the first reviews. It is plausible that
some of them decided not to participate out of collegiality rath-
er than lack of common interests. See W. von Seidlitz, 'Kunst-
geschichtliche Anzeigen. Beiblatt der Mittheilungen des Instituts
fur Osterreichische Geschichtsforschung', Kunstchronik: Wochen-
schrift fur Kunst und Kunstgewerbe, 1904, vol. 15, 21, pp. 346-347.
11 F. Wickhoff, 'An die Leser!', Kunstgeschichtliche Anzeigen. Beib-
latt der MIÓG, 1904, vol. 1, 1, pp. 1-2.
12 See also I. Kalavrezou-Maxeiner, 'Franz Wickhoff: Kunstge-
schichte als Wissenschaft', in Wien und die Entwicklung der kunst-
historischen Methode. Akten des XXV. Internationalen Kongresses
fur Kunstgeschichte. 4.-10. September 1983, vol. 1, eds S. Krenn,
M. Pippal, Vienna 1984, pp. 17-22.
The main task of the publication thus becomes clear
in these words: monitoring, supervision, and control of
the methodical application of art-historical research are
the purposes that the periodical should fulfil. Only three
weeks later, on 14 January 1903, Dvorak already had the
scheme of the first issue sent to his former teacher. It sho-
uld contain five reviews, two by Wickhoff, two by Dvorak,
and one by Wolfgang Kallab, but until they were published
another year had to pass. Only in August 1903 did Dvorak
nominate the KA again in a letter, asking if it wouldn't be
possible to continue working on the critical supplement
to the Mittheilungen. And, finally, on 5 September he wro-
te from Roudnice: 'I am very pleased that the journal is
coming to life. I hope it will be good, and I will do whate-
ver I possibly can with great pleasure.'8
During the following winter, in which Wickhoff had
headed off on a long excursion to Greece, Turkey and
Egypt, Dvorak was occupied with the organisation of the
journal: choosing the reviews, writing to the individual
contributors, conceptualising the typographic formatting
of the articles with the university publisher Wagner in
Innsbruck, making budget calculations, and so on. Due
to Wickhoff's absence in this period, this process is very
well documented by the correspondence between the two.
A very interesting aspect is the choice of academics
they wanted to invite to contribute. Among these were
not only Wickhoff's own pupils and Dvorak's direct col-
leagues from Vienna, such as the above mentioned Kal-
lab, Hans Tietze, Gustav Gluck and Friedrich Dornhoffer
(to mention just a few of the first contributors) but also
the German art historians Georg Swarzenski and Adolph
Goldschmidt, who were both positively reviewed in the
first issue and contributed to the first volume. But still,
until 1909 most reviews were written by Wickhoff him-
self, who contributed 42 times, followed by his assistant
Tietze with 22 and Dvorak with 19 reviews. Out of the 27
writers in total, the majority can be counted as pupils of
the Vienna School, while only seven contributors came
from other universities. Besides Goldschmidt and Swa-
rzenski, there were Cornelis Hofstede de Groot, Ray-
mond Koechlin, Friedrich Rintelen, Frida Schottmuller,
and Wilhelm Voge. Only Swarzenski and Rintelen contri-
buted several reviews (respectively seven and six), while
the others made only one contribution, most of them in
the first three volumes. About the involvement of 'reichs-
deutsche colleagues, Dvorak wrote:
Wien ein kritisches Organ nicht erst begrundet werden. Es konn-
ten dazu die Institutionsmittheilungen verwendet werden. Es
ware von grossem Vorteil[,] wenn man von Wien aus, wo es eine
so grosse Anzahl geeigneter Mitarbeiter gibt, die Wissenschaft-
lichkeit der kunstgeschichtlichen Production streng uberwachen
konnte.'
8 'Es freut mich riesig, dass die Zeitung zu Stande kommt. Ich hof-
fe[,] sie wird gut werden, was in meinen Kraften nur steht, will ich
mit grosser Freude einsetzen.'
A misunderstanding about the tendency of the journal
is also excluded by the content of the other reviews and
that this tendency is shared and approved by serious pe-
ople is clear from the letters that Goldschmidt and Swa-
rzenski wrote to me. We have nothing at all to do with
people who do not approve of this tendency, they are the
ones we must fight.9
His selection criteria were therefore not so much rela-
ted to an academic's provenance as to his methodological
approach.10
THE CONCEPT
OF WISSENSCHAFTLICHKEIT
But what precisely was this tendency, this Wissenschaft-
lichkeit that was always referred to? It is well explained
in the introduction written by Franz Wickhoff on the oc-
casion of the first issue and structured as a letter An die
Leser." In this brief introduction, Wickhoff directly clari-
fied which principles he and his colleagues followed, and
which were to be rejected.12 At first, he highlighted the in-
terrelation of the group of art historians who studied at
the IÓG and the fact that their shared intention, no matter
how different the precise fields of study may be, was the
same: to position art history among the other historical
sciences by treating the subject scientifically. For that, as
Wickhoff wrote, had by no means happened yet. Collea-
gues from the historical or linguistic fields didn't take art
historians seriously and Wickhoff could not blame them
because in no other discipline could such unscientific
and confused writings be published or accepted as hap-
pened in art history. These circumstances made it clear
that orientation is lacking, that no path leads through the
9 'Ein Misverstandnis [sic!] uber die Tendenz der Zeitschrift ist
auch durch den Inhalt der sonstigen Recensionen ausgeschlos-
sen und dass diese Tendenz von ernsten Leuten geteilt und gebil-
ligt wird, geht aus den Briefen hervor, die mir Goldschmidt und
Swarzenski geschrieben haben. Leute[,] die diese Tendenz nicht
billigt [sic!], mit denen haben wir uberhaupt nichts zu tun, das
sind eben die, die wir bekampfen mussen.' Letter from 14 Janu-
ary 1903.
10 The problem lies rather in the appalled reaction of some German
academics to the crude tone of the first reviews. It is plausible that
some of them decided not to participate out of collegiality rath-
er than lack of common interests. See W. von Seidlitz, 'Kunst-
geschichtliche Anzeigen. Beiblatt der Mittheilungen des Instituts
fur Osterreichische Geschichtsforschung', Kunstchronik: Wochen-
schrift fur Kunst und Kunstgewerbe, 1904, vol. 15, 21, pp. 346-347.
11 F. Wickhoff, 'An die Leser!', Kunstgeschichtliche Anzeigen. Beib-
latt der MIÓG, 1904, vol. 1, 1, pp. 1-2.
12 See also I. Kalavrezou-Maxeiner, 'Franz Wickhoff: Kunstge-
schichte als Wissenschaft', in Wien und die Entwicklung der kunst-
historischen Methode. Akten des XXV. Internationalen Kongresses
fur Kunstgeschichte. 4.-10. September 1983, vol. 1, eds S. Krenn,
M. Pippal, Vienna 1984, pp. 17-22.