I was not really referring to any particular `type' of art history. I
was refering to Art History as a disciplinary culture. That is not to
say that there are not some great, innovative, non-traditionalist
approaches to art. BUT, I am of the opinion, from my readings of all
sorts of art histories, art history, as a disciplinary culture,
reinforces a Eurocentric history of art, more particularly a
Francocentric history of art. I am not implying or arguing that there
are no art historians challenging such a position.
For instance, if i said archaeology was still masculist in character,
would anyone really think that I was saying there were no feminist
archaeologies, or gender archaeologies or queer archaeologies. No.
There have been some dismissive remarks because I cited Gombrich, as
if to show my ignorance of art history (and in fact I agree with
what Louise said about archaeology and anthropology). Rather I
believe that dismissing Gombrich as not having that much influence is
incredibly naive. His big book is in its 19th edition, it is still in
the top five non-fiction bestsellers. In 1995 in the 19the edition
the most recent reference to anything prehistoric was 25 years old!!!
This trend can be seen in many other books. This book has a far
greater impact on the general public than say Stanisewskis book
(which I think is the best book written on art of any period). But
even books like Staniszewski's, in my opinion - as an outsider, have
not changed the overall disciplinary culture - but they do challenge
a very tradition/normative art history. Just as we accept that we
have to into account the popular consumption of archaeology (ie the
recent and fascinating thread of science fiction, and remember the
reactions that that discussion engendered) so too we can explore the
representation of `archaeological art' in art history.
There appears to be an assumption that I have only read Clarke and
Gombrich. I find the implication that only art historians can really
know what is going on in art history to be somewhat disturbing. I
have been researching rock art in many parts of the world for over a
decade now and am now focussing my interest on the theoretical and
methodological approaches to the interpretation of art in
archaeological contexts. In that endeavour I ahve obviously had to
negotiate art history in its many and varied forms. If as Maia thinks
my statement is so bloated with nontruths how is that John Bookers
original statement (more of which can be found in his web pages) to
which I was originally repsonding was so traditional in character.
Perhaps because I am not that way of the mark?
"For example, the few items that can be given to the
Waldalgesheim Master do not afford enough changes to construct a
decent chronology, let alone a reconstruction of this individual's
working methods and the tenets of his art."
The notion of a master is one that is so socially and
historically specific and yet it is entrenched in many types of
analysis of art from all sorts of contexts.
----------------------
Thomas A Dowson
Department of Archaeology
University of Southampton
England
[log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|