DOI Artikel:
Bryl, Mariusz: Czy samobójstwo teorii historii sztuki?: o "Bildwissenschaft", bałkanizacji, polskim kontekście i suwerenności sztuki
DOI Seite / Zitierlink:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.14244#0034
28
MARIUSZ BRYL
A SUICIDE OF THE THEORY OF ART HISTORY?
ON BILDWISSENSCHAFT, BALKANISATION, POLISH CONTEXT
AND ART INDEPENDENCE
Summary
I would likc to adapt a Stanisław Ignacy Witkiewicz's understanding of a suicide of given field of spiritual activity of man
to shed light on current theoretical situation of our discipline. I propose therefore to distinguish the three versions of suicide/end/
death of art history that face our discipline today. First of al 1, I would like to define the Witkiewicz theory of the end of philosophy
"at the own request of philosophers" - transferring it to the field of the theory of art history - as "doing business as usual".
A suicide of theory here could be considered as a conséquence of an autonomous résignation of art historians from theoretical
reflection, regarded as unimportant, or even damaging to the proper functioning and development of the study of art history.
Secondly, the Witkiewicz theory of "insatiability for form", of agonal convulsions of art, I would like to apply to the modern
"theoretical debauchery", a phenomenon which we are able to observe in English-speaking history of art, in which the word
"theory" is being used in any possible way. And thirdly, the Witkiewicz optimism about developing a final metaphysical system that
détermines impassable limits of philosophical reflection I would like to apply to these of modern art historians who, originating
from the tradition of our discipline, aim at formulation a new, comprehensive theory which would embrace ail manifestations of
visual activity of man.
The "Polish contexf ' was used more in a historical than modern aspect. A 1980 book by Jan Białostocki Historia sztuki wśród
nauk humanistycznych (History of Art among the Humanities) was a reaction to, and at the same time a summary of, a theoretical
modernisation process of our discipline from the previous décade. The cłosing proposai of the author to establish the foundations
of iconology with Marxist basis thus making the ultimate model of interprétation was both a quintessence and crowning of
Białostocki's efforts to salvage an integrity of the discipline through a récupération of new methods (first of ail, social history of
art), with réservation, however, that iconology - as this one of the traditional methods which has the most absorptive abilities, sińce
from the very beginning it has had a structural, semiotic and sociological aspect - would take a central position in methodological
pluralism of modern art history. The comprehensive Białostocki's vision represented an optimistic version of the "suicide" of the
theory of art history, according to which its end would be équivalent to a consensus of opinion regarding the catégories of discursive
depiction of the subject, method and tasks of scholarly art history.
If in modem Polish art history there is a period of "doing business as usual", it is a resuit of discouragement about theory
which seems to be in excess rather than insufficient. In the Anglo-American circle that is taking a lead in the process of cultural
globalisation, we are able to observe a phenomenon of extremely excessive theorisation, which is centrifugal, and not aimed at a
theoretical synthesis. On the contrary: it is lead under the banner of de-centrism, discontinuity, groundlessness, and at the same time
- though it might seem contradictory - of partiality, politicking, progressiveness. Therefore on one hand there is an anarchical
impulse (represented by a hackneyed term "anything goes"), and on the other hand a revolutionary impulse: a project of social
reconstruction in the name of progress. Without any doubts we can talk about a spécifie dialectics of this process, according to
which both aspects - although opposite on the ideological grounds - on the real ground support and détermine one another. I would
like to emphasise the ideological dimension of the new, emerging in faster and faster расе, "alternative" theoretical perspectives.
An opposition against traditional science - as obvious - is much less important. An internai compétition has corne to the fore.
This condition of the discipline could be well illustrated by a rise and development of "Queer Theory", the newest American
theoretical invention, which has already penetrated the centre of professional American art history. I would like to call attention to
two aspects. Firstly, there is a close relation between theory and practice - "queer" is both an answer to the needs of a certain social
group and at the same time is functioning as entirely entitled theoretical perspective in the field of the humanities, including art
history. Secondly, the "queer theory" is regarded as alternative to institutionalised, and as such strengthening political and social
status quo, "Lesbian and Gay Studies". "Queer Theory" is a model example of the mechanism of arising and functioning of the new
theoretical depictions which in faster and faster pace follow each other, bidding to offer the most theoretical and practical radicalism.
As a conséquence art history has been divided into many antagonistic circles that claim to be leading, which in advance preclude
not only a mutual agreement but also any kind of reasonable dialogue that could lead to such an agreement. This very condition
of our discipline Jonahathan Harris, a British art historian, characterised as "balkanisation". At the same time an imperative to be
a scientific and political avant-garde, which is one of the vital factors of self-identification of the représentatives of these new
theoretical orientations, manifest itself in - according to Harris - uncontrollable pursuit of novelty which in turn is becoming a tool
and imperative of the market. Even though the explanation of the "balkanisation" process of art history offered by Harris seems to
us too one-sided, it is impossible generally to disagree with an existence and the characteristics of this phenomenon. Paraphrasing
Witkacy we can say that at présent we are in a state of "insatiability for theory", that we witness the theoretical convulsions of art
history, that we observe "the agonal paroxysms" of our discipline.
But even today there are made certain efforts to defence the integrity and a central place of art history among other humanistic
disciplines. This aim in view have the latest works of Hans Belting who going in the direction indicated in his second essay Das
Ende der Kunstgeschichte (1995) prépares the theoretical grounds for a new discipline, which intégrâtes ail images regardless of
diversity and changeability of their media. The Belting's reflection moves insides a quadrangle made up of the four basic catégories:
medium, image, body, and place. Even though this new formation of our discipline has to function under a new name
(Bildwissenschaft), its central place would still be occupied by art history, given that it is its évolution that play a constitutive role
in projecting of the new discipline. The main concepts of "anthropological science of images" evolved from the theory and practice
of art history. And this very double meaning: of comprehensive understanding of the tradition of our discipline and of modem
reflection in other disciplines of the humanities allows us to regard Belting's theory as the latest attempt at "theoretical suicide" of
MARIUSZ BRYL
A SUICIDE OF THE THEORY OF ART HISTORY?
ON BILDWISSENSCHAFT, BALKANISATION, POLISH CONTEXT
AND ART INDEPENDENCE
Summary
I would likc to adapt a Stanisław Ignacy Witkiewicz's understanding of a suicide of given field of spiritual activity of man
to shed light on current theoretical situation of our discipline. I propose therefore to distinguish the three versions of suicide/end/
death of art history that face our discipline today. First of al 1, I would like to define the Witkiewicz theory of the end of philosophy
"at the own request of philosophers" - transferring it to the field of the theory of art history - as "doing business as usual".
A suicide of theory here could be considered as a conséquence of an autonomous résignation of art historians from theoretical
reflection, regarded as unimportant, or even damaging to the proper functioning and development of the study of art history.
Secondly, the Witkiewicz theory of "insatiability for form", of agonal convulsions of art, I would like to apply to the modern
"theoretical debauchery", a phenomenon which we are able to observe in English-speaking history of art, in which the word
"theory" is being used in any possible way. And thirdly, the Witkiewicz optimism about developing a final metaphysical system that
détermines impassable limits of philosophical reflection I would like to apply to these of modern art historians who, originating
from the tradition of our discipline, aim at formulation a new, comprehensive theory which would embrace ail manifestations of
visual activity of man.
The "Polish contexf ' was used more in a historical than modern aspect. A 1980 book by Jan Białostocki Historia sztuki wśród
nauk humanistycznych (History of Art among the Humanities) was a reaction to, and at the same time a summary of, a theoretical
modernisation process of our discipline from the previous décade. The cłosing proposai of the author to establish the foundations
of iconology with Marxist basis thus making the ultimate model of interprétation was both a quintessence and crowning of
Białostocki's efforts to salvage an integrity of the discipline through a récupération of new methods (first of ail, social history of
art), with réservation, however, that iconology - as this one of the traditional methods which has the most absorptive abilities, sińce
from the very beginning it has had a structural, semiotic and sociological aspect - would take a central position in methodological
pluralism of modern art history. The comprehensive Białostocki's vision represented an optimistic version of the "suicide" of the
theory of art history, according to which its end would be équivalent to a consensus of opinion regarding the catégories of discursive
depiction of the subject, method and tasks of scholarly art history.
If in modem Polish art history there is a period of "doing business as usual", it is a resuit of discouragement about theory
which seems to be in excess rather than insufficient. In the Anglo-American circle that is taking a lead in the process of cultural
globalisation, we are able to observe a phenomenon of extremely excessive theorisation, which is centrifugal, and not aimed at a
theoretical synthesis. On the contrary: it is lead under the banner of de-centrism, discontinuity, groundlessness, and at the same time
- though it might seem contradictory - of partiality, politicking, progressiveness. Therefore on one hand there is an anarchical
impulse (represented by a hackneyed term "anything goes"), and on the other hand a revolutionary impulse: a project of social
reconstruction in the name of progress. Without any doubts we can talk about a spécifie dialectics of this process, according to
which both aspects - although opposite on the ideological grounds - on the real ground support and détermine one another. I would
like to emphasise the ideological dimension of the new, emerging in faster and faster расе, "alternative" theoretical perspectives.
An opposition against traditional science - as obvious - is much less important. An internai compétition has corne to the fore.
This condition of the discipline could be well illustrated by a rise and development of "Queer Theory", the newest American
theoretical invention, which has already penetrated the centre of professional American art history. I would like to call attention to
two aspects. Firstly, there is a close relation between theory and practice - "queer" is both an answer to the needs of a certain social
group and at the same time is functioning as entirely entitled theoretical perspective in the field of the humanities, including art
history. Secondly, the "queer theory" is regarded as alternative to institutionalised, and as such strengthening political and social
status quo, "Lesbian and Gay Studies". "Queer Theory" is a model example of the mechanism of arising and functioning of the new
theoretical depictions which in faster and faster pace follow each other, bidding to offer the most theoretical and practical radicalism.
As a conséquence art history has been divided into many antagonistic circles that claim to be leading, which in advance preclude
not only a mutual agreement but also any kind of reasonable dialogue that could lead to such an agreement. This very condition
of our discipline Jonahathan Harris, a British art historian, characterised as "balkanisation". At the same time an imperative to be
a scientific and political avant-garde, which is one of the vital factors of self-identification of the représentatives of these new
theoretical orientations, manifest itself in - according to Harris - uncontrollable pursuit of novelty which in turn is becoming a tool
and imperative of the market. Even though the explanation of the "balkanisation" process of art history offered by Harris seems to
us too one-sided, it is impossible generally to disagree with an existence and the characteristics of this phenomenon. Paraphrasing
Witkacy we can say that at présent we are in a state of "insatiability for theory", that we witness the theoretical convulsions of art
history, that we observe "the agonal paroxysms" of our discipline.
But even today there are made certain efforts to defence the integrity and a central place of art history among other humanistic
disciplines. This aim in view have the latest works of Hans Belting who going in the direction indicated in his second essay Das
Ende der Kunstgeschichte (1995) prépares the theoretical grounds for a new discipline, which intégrâtes ail images regardless of
diversity and changeability of their media. The Belting's reflection moves insides a quadrangle made up of the four basic catégories:
medium, image, body, and place. Even though this new formation of our discipline has to function under a new name
(Bildwissenschaft), its central place would still be occupied by art history, given that it is its évolution that play a constitutive role
in projecting of the new discipline. The main concepts of "anthropological science of images" evolved from the theory and practice
of art history. And this very double meaning: of comprehensive understanding of the tradition of our discipline and of modem
reflection in other disciplines of the humanities allows us to regard Belting's theory as the latest attempt at "theoretical suicide" of