DOI Artikel:
Szczerski, Andrzej: Art history as art criticism?
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.19069#0122
source of values and should be combined with other spheres of influence for
the artwork, e.g. its motivated expression in the political and social sphere.
Although one may ask if art is not losing some of its critical value when it is
oveiiy immersed in the current socio-political life.
By way of example I would like to point to the double face of the notion of
originality7. The critics of post-modera art refused to use it, as did the artists.
The criticism of the notion stood at the centrę of the post-modern approach
to the traditions of the 20th century and to the traditions of all art history. As
such the critiąue was a conscious part of the larger and complex vision of
contemporary culture. This does not mean that the notion of originality lost its
relevance, indeed, I trust it could still be given positive value. The concept of
originality lies at the heart of art history and the constant changes in the arts.
It does not belong only to the modernist utopia and, as an effect, to the post-
modern repudiation of it. Originality is a condition sine qua non for creativity.
I do not see it as a return to the idea of progress in the arts, but as a constant
opening of new vistas for the arts. In this sense the post-modern ąuestioning
of the notion of originality was itself rather original and simply allowed us
understand originality much better. Originality seems to be particularly hard
to achieve in the globalised world, nevertheless globalisation, with its ongoing
unification, could be the best stimulus for the return to originality.
Obviously it is not only art history, which is able to judge. Art criticism
plays a crucial role in shaping the current debatę. It acts as the spectator with
all its rights to give ans wers to the art-works produced nowadays. But its ma-
jor role is thus temporary and direct - art criticism does not have the wider
perspectives of art history. Art history should differentiate from art criticism
exactly because of its historical background and should look beyond for
judgement. And it is precisely because of this, I believe, that art history also
gives us the best insight into the most unusual experiments in the arts nowa-
days, particularly those which ąuestion the existence of art itself, trying to
defme the art anew. One can accept the transgressions while knowing what to
transgress and if the effect of the transgression is of any value.
Art history is challenged by contemporary art to make judgements. I be-
lieve that it is fruitfal for it to withstand this challenge and to perform the role
of art criticism. And I trust this is also beneficial for art.
7 Cf. R. Shiff, Originality, in: Critical Tenns for Art History, ed. R.S. Nelson, R. Shiff, Chi-
cago and London 1992, pp. 103-115.
119
the artwork, e.g. its motivated expression in the political and social sphere.
Although one may ask if art is not losing some of its critical value when it is
oveiiy immersed in the current socio-political life.
By way of example I would like to point to the double face of the notion of
originality7. The critics of post-modera art refused to use it, as did the artists.
The criticism of the notion stood at the centrę of the post-modern approach
to the traditions of the 20th century and to the traditions of all art history. As
such the critiąue was a conscious part of the larger and complex vision of
contemporary culture. This does not mean that the notion of originality lost its
relevance, indeed, I trust it could still be given positive value. The concept of
originality lies at the heart of art history and the constant changes in the arts.
It does not belong only to the modernist utopia and, as an effect, to the post-
modern repudiation of it. Originality is a condition sine qua non for creativity.
I do not see it as a return to the idea of progress in the arts, but as a constant
opening of new vistas for the arts. In this sense the post-modern ąuestioning
of the notion of originality was itself rather original and simply allowed us
understand originality much better. Originality seems to be particularly hard
to achieve in the globalised world, nevertheless globalisation, with its ongoing
unification, could be the best stimulus for the return to originality.
Obviously it is not only art history, which is able to judge. Art criticism
plays a crucial role in shaping the current debatę. It acts as the spectator with
all its rights to give ans wers to the art-works produced nowadays. But its ma-
jor role is thus temporary and direct - art criticism does not have the wider
perspectives of art history. Art history should differentiate from art criticism
exactly because of its historical background and should look beyond for
judgement. And it is precisely because of this, I believe, that art history also
gives us the best insight into the most unusual experiments in the arts nowa-
days, particularly those which ąuestion the existence of art itself, trying to
defme the art anew. One can accept the transgressions while knowing what to
transgress and if the effect of the transgression is of any value.
Art history is challenged by contemporary art to make judgements. I be-
lieve that it is fruitfal for it to withstand this challenge and to perform the role
of art criticism. And I trust this is also beneficial for art.
7 Cf. R. Shiff, Originality, in: Critical Tenns for Art History, ed. R.S. Nelson, R. Shiff, Chi-
cago and London 1992, pp. 103-115.
119