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#0056
55
the importance of the form rather than the content of an
art work, percolated through Wickhoff's teaching to the
youngest historians, who were able to devote themselves
directly to the study of art history. It was only a matter
of time before the historical auxiliary science was given
a more prominent position at the institute, as it not only
trained archivists and librarians, but also museum offi-
cials (Beamte).26
Finally, another scholar of the Vienna School must not
be left unseen. Even though he was not actively involved
in the KA project and did not write a single review, Al-
ois Riegl's ideas are a driving force behind the definition
of academic art history. In fact, on the occasion of Riegl's
death in 1905 Dvorak wrote an obituary in which he de-
lineated the development of the discipline of art history to
date and distinguished between three different approach-
es since the middle of the 19th c.: cultural-historical, aes-
thetic and historic-dogmatic (represented respectively by
Schnaase, Semper and Burckhardt).27 None of these cur-
rents had been able to combine the general historic mean-
ing with the immanent specific meaning of the single
art work. Only Riegl, in Dvorak's view, had managed to
bridge this gap and establish a connection between histo-
ry and artwork through precise historical research. Riegl
himself had reflected on this relationship in a review of
Cornelius Gurlitt's 1902 Geschichte der Kunst, significant-
ly entitled Eine neue Kunstgeschichte. In his opinion, the
art-historical discipline had to follow a principle of unity
that could only be realised through 'the presentation of
the similarities between the artistic and other cultural en-
deavours - in religion, philosophy, politics, social move-
ments - of the same time.'28 This was a principle decisive
for the following generation of the Vienna School.
REFLECTIONS ON THE JOURNAL'S
LEGITIMACY
The format proposed by Dvorak and Wickhoff is a novel-
ty in art history and the definition of this genre is quite
specific. From today's perspective, it is easy to categori-
se these notices as reviews of art-historical publications,
as is usual in the academic communication system. One
pp. 49-55; L. Uglow, 'Giovanni Morelli and his Friend Giorgio-
ne: Connoisseurship, Science and Irony, Journal of Art Historio-
graphy, 2014, vol. 11, pp. 1-30.
26 See A. Lhotsky, Geschichte, pp. 205-211 (as in note 17), for the in-
volvement of art history in the institute.
27 M. Dvorak, 'Alois Riegl', Mitteilungen der k. k. Zentral-Kommis-
sion zur Erforschung und Erhaltung der Kunst- und Historischen
Denkmale, 1905, vol. 3, 4, (col. 255-276), col. 258-259.
28 'die Darlegung der Gemeinsamkeit zwischen den kunstleri-
schen und ubrigen kulturellen Bestrebungen - in Religion, Phi-
losophie, Politik, sozialen Bewegungen - der gleichzeitigen Zeit.'
A. Riegl, 'Eine neue Kunstgeschichte' in Gesammelte Aufsdtze,
ed. K. M. Swoboda, Augsburg 1929, pp. 43-50.
hundred and twenty years ago, however, the situation was
completely different: although literary criticism had exi-
sted since the Enlightenment and art criticism had es-
tablished itself at the latest with Denis Diderot's Salon
commentaries,29 the reviews belong to neither the first
nor the second category. They refer to writings, but only
to art-historical non-fiction, and although these texts may
contain observations on individual works of art, these are
not the purpose of the publication, the essence of which
is rather to analyse the various methods used to exami-
ne a certain topic. While individual art-historical reviews
had been published before, the journal, which is limited
exclusively to this format, represents a first for the enti-
re discipline. Indeed, in the register of his comprehensi-
ve work Kunstgeschichte und Kunstwissenschaft from 1923,
Walter Timmling described the KA as: 'Review organ
only. Leading as such, not replaced to date.'30 Like its pre-
cursors in the field of historical studies, this new pheno-
menon is a clear product of the development of discipli-
nary tradition over the second half of the 19th and the first
quarter of the 20th c.31
According to the German historical information me-
dium H-Soz-Kult, a modern review ideally fulfils three
functions: 'It provides information about new publica-
tions and content, it subjects publications to critical quali-
ty control by professional and independent reviewers and
it places the research results in a wider context.'32 If the-
se criteria are compared with the conditions of the KA,
then the first and last points apply, but what distinguishes
them from today's review system is the independence of
the authors. The contributors were closely linked not only
by a professional but frequently also a social network and
thus often pursued similar ideals.33 In an interesting artic-
le on the role of journals in the institutionalisation pro-
cess of historical scholarship, Matthias Middell refers to
29 See W. Muller-Jentsch, 'Kunstkritik als literarische Gattung.
Gesellschaftliche Bedingungen ihrer Entstehung, Entfaltung und
Krise', Berliner Journal fur Soziologie, 2012, vol. 22, pp. 539-568.
30 'Nur Rezensionsorgan. Als solches fuhrend, bis heute nicht er-
setzt.' W. Timmling, Kunstgeschichte und Kunstwissenschaft,
Leipzig 1923, p. 272.
31 See Ch. Ottner, 'The Professionalization of the Historical Disci-
pline: Austrian Scholarly Periodicals, 1840-1900', in The Making
of the Humanities. The Modern Humanities, vol. 3, ed. R. Bod,
J. Maat, T. Weststeijn, Amsterdam 2014, pp. 157-169.
32 es informiert uber neue Publikationen und Inhalte, es unterzieht
Publikationen einer kritischen Qualitatskontrolle durch fach-
lich ausgewiesene und unabhangige Rezensent:innen und es ord-
net vorgelegte Forschungsergebnisse in gróBere Zusammenhan-
ge ein.' 'Forum: Buchrezensionen in den Geschichtswissenschaf-
ten, H-Soz-Kult, 1.01.2021, hsozkult.de/debate/id/fddebate-132428
(access: 25.10.2024).
33 On the co-dependence of academic relationships see J. Tolle-
beek, 'A Domestic Culture: The Mise-en-scene of Modern His-
toriography, in The Making of the Humanities, pp. 129-143 (as in
note 31).
the importance of the form rather than the content of an
art work, percolated through Wickhoff's teaching to the
youngest historians, who were able to devote themselves
directly to the study of art history. It was only a matter
of time before the historical auxiliary science was given
a more prominent position at the institute, as it not only
trained archivists and librarians, but also museum offi-
cials (Beamte).26
Finally, another scholar of the Vienna School must not
be left unseen. Even though he was not actively involved
in the KA project and did not write a single review, Al-
ois Riegl's ideas are a driving force behind the definition
of academic art history. In fact, on the occasion of Riegl's
death in 1905 Dvorak wrote an obituary in which he de-
lineated the development of the discipline of art history to
date and distinguished between three different approach-
es since the middle of the 19th c.: cultural-historical, aes-
thetic and historic-dogmatic (represented respectively by
Schnaase, Semper and Burckhardt).27 None of these cur-
rents had been able to combine the general historic mean-
ing with the immanent specific meaning of the single
art work. Only Riegl, in Dvorak's view, had managed to
bridge this gap and establish a connection between histo-
ry and artwork through precise historical research. Riegl
himself had reflected on this relationship in a review of
Cornelius Gurlitt's 1902 Geschichte der Kunst, significant-
ly entitled Eine neue Kunstgeschichte. In his opinion, the
art-historical discipline had to follow a principle of unity
that could only be realised through 'the presentation of
the similarities between the artistic and other cultural en-
deavours - in religion, philosophy, politics, social move-
ments - of the same time.'28 This was a principle decisive
for the following generation of the Vienna School.
REFLECTIONS ON THE JOURNAL'S
LEGITIMACY
The format proposed by Dvorak and Wickhoff is a novel-
ty in art history and the definition of this genre is quite
specific. From today's perspective, it is easy to categori-
se these notices as reviews of art-historical publications,
as is usual in the academic communication system. One
pp. 49-55; L. Uglow, 'Giovanni Morelli and his Friend Giorgio-
ne: Connoisseurship, Science and Irony, Journal of Art Historio-
graphy, 2014, vol. 11, pp. 1-30.
26 See A. Lhotsky, Geschichte, pp. 205-211 (as in note 17), for the in-
volvement of art history in the institute.
27 M. Dvorak, 'Alois Riegl', Mitteilungen der k. k. Zentral-Kommis-
sion zur Erforschung und Erhaltung der Kunst- und Historischen
Denkmale, 1905, vol. 3, 4, (col. 255-276), col. 258-259.
28 'die Darlegung der Gemeinsamkeit zwischen den kunstleri-
schen und ubrigen kulturellen Bestrebungen - in Religion, Phi-
losophie, Politik, sozialen Bewegungen - der gleichzeitigen Zeit.'
A. Riegl, 'Eine neue Kunstgeschichte' in Gesammelte Aufsdtze,
ed. K. M. Swoboda, Augsburg 1929, pp. 43-50.
hundred and twenty years ago, however, the situation was
completely different: although literary criticism had exi-
sted since the Enlightenment and art criticism had es-
tablished itself at the latest with Denis Diderot's Salon
commentaries,29 the reviews belong to neither the first
nor the second category. They refer to writings, but only
to art-historical non-fiction, and although these texts may
contain observations on individual works of art, these are
not the purpose of the publication, the essence of which
is rather to analyse the various methods used to exami-
ne a certain topic. While individual art-historical reviews
had been published before, the journal, which is limited
exclusively to this format, represents a first for the enti-
re discipline. Indeed, in the register of his comprehensi-
ve work Kunstgeschichte und Kunstwissenschaft from 1923,
Walter Timmling described the KA as: 'Review organ
only. Leading as such, not replaced to date.'30 Like its pre-
cursors in the field of historical studies, this new pheno-
menon is a clear product of the development of discipli-
nary tradition over the second half of the 19th and the first
quarter of the 20th c.31
According to the German historical information me-
dium H-Soz-Kult, a modern review ideally fulfils three
functions: 'It provides information about new publica-
tions and content, it subjects publications to critical quali-
ty control by professional and independent reviewers and
it places the research results in a wider context.'32 If the-
se criteria are compared with the conditions of the KA,
then the first and last points apply, but what distinguishes
them from today's review system is the independence of
the authors. The contributors were closely linked not only
by a professional but frequently also a social network and
thus often pursued similar ideals.33 In an interesting artic-
le on the role of journals in the institutionalisation pro-
cess of historical scholarship, Matthias Middell refers to
29 See W. Muller-Jentsch, 'Kunstkritik als literarische Gattung.
Gesellschaftliche Bedingungen ihrer Entstehung, Entfaltung und
Krise', Berliner Journal fur Soziologie, 2012, vol. 22, pp. 539-568.
30 'Nur Rezensionsorgan. Als solches fuhrend, bis heute nicht er-
setzt.' W. Timmling, Kunstgeschichte und Kunstwissenschaft,
Leipzig 1923, p. 272.
31 See Ch. Ottner, 'The Professionalization of the Historical Disci-
pline: Austrian Scholarly Periodicals, 1840-1900', in The Making
of the Humanities. The Modern Humanities, vol. 3, ed. R. Bod,
J. Maat, T. Weststeijn, Amsterdam 2014, pp. 157-169.
32 es informiert uber neue Publikationen und Inhalte, es unterzieht
Publikationen einer kritischen Qualitatskontrolle durch fach-
lich ausgewiesene und unabhangige Rezensent:innen und es ord-
net vorgelegte Forschungsergebnisse in gróBere Zusammenhan-
ge ein.' 'Forum: Buchrezensionen in den Geschichtswissenschaf-
ten, H-Soz-Kult, 1.01.2021, hsozkult.de/debate/id/fddebate-132428
(access: 25.10.2024).
33 On the co-dependence of academic relationships see J. Tolle-
beek, 'A Domestic Culture: The Mise-en-scene of Modern His-
toriography, in The Making of the Humanities, pp. 129-143 (as in
note 31).