The Role of the Vienna School in Shaping Central European Approaches to Art History and Related Discourses
I. “Humanists” versus “Relativists”: Methodological Visions and Revisions within the Vienna School
The Common Denominator
Irrespective of whether the Vienna School can be regarded as a dialectical system within a bipolar structure or as a merely pluralistic succession of methodological discourses,1 and despite all the deep differences concerning the nature of art, the historical process and art historical research, there were at least three common characteristics shared by all art historians trained at Vienna University from Moritz Thausing to Ernst H. Gombrich. They are as follows: 1. the idea of art history as a science; 2. the notion of the historical basis of art history, and 3. belief in the method as a methodological credo or doctrine.2
Summary or a Foreshadowing of Revisions to Orthodoxy?
It is well known that Hans Tietze, in his Methode der Kunstgeschichte, published in 1913, attempted to summarize the basic principles of the ← 11 | 12 → evolutionist methodological project developed by Franz Wickhoff and Alois Riegl and articulated explicitly by Max Dvořák.3 In “Das Rätsel der Kunst der Brüder van Eyck” (published in 1903),4 Dvořák had expressed the credo of a “genetic approach” as follows: “… die moderne Wissenschaft hat uns gelehrt... die Tatsachen in einzelne... Kausalverbindung zwingende Entwicklungsketten umzusetzen. Unter dem Einflusse der exakten Forschungsmethoden haben wir... gelernt... eine Tatsache nie als eine vereinzelte Erscheinung, sondern stets als ein Glied in einer bestimmten Aufeinanderfolge von Tatsachen derselben oder verwandten Art zu betrachten.”5 In Tietze’s reconstruction of the genetic method of the Vienna School,...
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.
This site requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals.
Do you have any questions? Contact us.Or login to access all content.