DOI article:
Szczerski, Andrzej: Art history as art criticism?
DOI Page / Citation link: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.19069#0120
pretation which itself creates those facts. This situation has a profound impact
on the variety of cultural spheres, but probably most directly on the contem-
porary art scenę. For much of the 20th centuiy art consciously used the strate-
gies of art history as one of its sources of inspirations. Although one should
acknowledge the mutual influence of the contemporary art and art history on
each other - this has been discussed in length by Hans Belting5 -1 would like
to emphasise the following issue: art historians tend to underestimate the im-
portance of their judgements for developments within art itself, in all the vari-
ous meanings of the word "art", and within the domam of their discipline. On
the one hand this has a short-term effect of allowing the mediocre or worthless
production be treated as art and on the other a long-term effect of the destruc-
tion of the criteria for judgement, be it of the past or present.
Here, the connection between contemporary art and contemporaiy art his-
tory plays a crucial role. Contemporary art history is dealing with the phenom-
ena trying to introduce new elements into the art discourse. Thus art historians
are encountering the problem of the defmition of their field of study - what
is art and what is not. Simultaneously they learn from contemporaiy art what
art could be and what values should be discovered in the art of the present and
past. In this respect art history could be called both the prospective and retro-
spective discipline, When looking at the present it has to re-evaluate the past
and at the same time set standards for the futurę.
But here precisely is the greatest challenge for the discipline. When talking
about contemporaiy art, art historians too often tend to follow the well-estab-
lished path of art critics. As Ernst Gombrich noted, the art historian comes af-
ter the connoisseur and the art critic. Art historians usually do not ąuestion the
canon of crucial events in contemporaiy art life as elaborated by the art critics.
Yet they should allow themselves some kind of mdependence from the actual
context and contemporary art life. Those eager-to-find-something-new art
historians who tend to follow the art critics in their judgements and write the
most advanced art histories are just missing the principles of their discipline.
I believe that it is the art historian who should look carefully at the contem-
porary art scenę and make judgements, which are not oriented towards "here
and now" principles but which tiy to take into account a wider spectrum of
the variety of ąuestions. Art histoiy could then play a role of art criticism but
at the same time differ from it substantially. As a discipline entitled to make
H. Belting, Das Ende der Kunstgeschichte, Munich 1984 and Idem, Das Ende der Kunst-
geschichte. Eine Revision nach zehn Jahren, Munich 1994.
117
on the variety of cultural spheres, but probably most directly on the contem-
porary art scenę. For much of the 20th centuiy art consciously used the strate-
gies of art history as one of its sources of inspirations. Although one should
acknowledge the mutual influence of the contemporary art and art history on
each other - this has been discussed in length by Hans Belting5 -1 would like
to emphasise the following issue: art historians tend to underestimate the im-
portance of their judgements for developments within art itself, in all the vari-
ous meanings of the word "art", and within the domam of their discipline. On
the one hand this has a short-term effect of allowing the mediocre or worthless
production be treated as art and on the other a long-term effect of the destruc-
tion of the criteria for judgement, be it of the past or present.
Here, the connection between contemporary art and contemporaiy art his-
tory plays a crucial role. Contemporary art history is dealing with the phenom-
ena trying to introduce new elements into the art discourse. Thus art historians
are encountering the problem of the defmition of their field of study - what
is art and what is not. Simultaneously they learn from contemporaiy art what
art could be and what values should be discovered in the art of the present and
past. In this respect art history could be called both the prospective and retro-
spective discipline, When looking at the present it has to re-evaluate the past
and at the same time set standards for the futurę.
But here precisely is the greatest challenge for the discipline. When talking
about contemporaiy art, art historians too often tend to follow the well-estab-
lished path of art critics. As Ernst Gombrich noted, the art historian comes af-
ter the connoisseur and the art critic. Art historians usually do not ąuestion the
canon of crucial events in contemporaiy art life as elaborated by the art critics.
Yet they should allow themselves some kind of mdependence from the actual
context and contemporary art life. Those eager-to-find-something-new art
historians who tend to follow the art critics in their judgements and write the
most advanced art histories are just missing the principles of their discipline.
I believe that it is the art historian who should look carefully at the contem-
porary art scenę and make judgements, which are not oriented towards "here
and now" principles but which tiy to take into account a wider spectrum of
the variety of ąuestions. Art histoiy could then play a role of art criticism but
at the same time differ from it substantially. As a discipline entitled to make
H. Belting, Das Ende der Kunstgeschichte, Munich 1984 and Idem, Das Ende der Kunst-
geschichte. Eine Revision nach zehn Jahren, Munich 1994.
117