This article is about the academic discipline of art history. For an overview of the history of art worldwide, seeHistory of art. For other uses, seeArt history (disambiguation).
You can helpexpand this article with text translated fromthe corresponding article in Spanish. (July 2025)Click [show] for important translation instructions.
Machine translation, likeDeepL orGoogle Translate, is a useful starting point for translations, but translators must revise errors as necessary and confirm that the translation is accurate, rather than simply copy-pasting machine-translated text into the English Wikipedia.
Do not translate text that appears unreliable or low-quality. If possible, verify the text with references provided in the foreign-language article.
Youmust providecopyright attribution in theedit summary accompanying your translation by providing aninterlanguage link to the source of your translation. A model attribution edit summary isContent in this edit is translated from the existing Spanish Wikipedia article at [[:es:Estudio de la historia del arte]]; see its history for attribution.
You may also add the template{{Translated|es|Estudio de la historia del arte}} to thetalk page.
The study of art’s history emerged as a way to document and interpret artistic production. Early traditions of art-historical writing developed in several cultures, includingAncient Greece,Imperial China, andRenaissance Italy, each producing influential figures and approaches that shaped later scholarship.[2][3] As an academic discipline, art history emerged in the 19th century and was a largelyEurocentric field, concentrating on Western definitions of thefine anddecorative arts, particularlypainting,drawing,sculpture, andarchitecture.
In contemporary era, however, art history has expanded to examine broader aspects ofvisual culture, including the various cultural, political, and socioeconomic issues related to art.[4][5] Today, art history is a broad academic field encompassing numerousmethodologies andinterdisciplinary approaches to the study of artistic production globally, includingEuropean,Asian,African, orAmerican Indigenous arts, among others. Some of the subfields includeMarxist art history,feminist art history,iconography and the study of symbols, visual culture studies, anddesign history.[1]
An conservation technician working on a painting.c. 2010
Art historians employ a number ofmethods in their research so they can examine work in the context of its time. This is professionally done in a manner which respects its creator's motivations and imperatives; with consideration of the desires and prejudices of its patrons and sponsors. A comparative analysis of themes and approaches of the creator's colleagues and teachers along with consideration of iconography andsymbolism is part of the examination. In short, this approach examines the work of art in the context of the world within which it was created.
An analysis oficonography is a large branch of art history which focuses on particular design elements of an object. Through a close reading of such elements, it is possible to trace their lineage, and with it draw conclusions regarding the origins and trajectory of thesemotifs. In turn, it is possible to make any number of observations regarding the social, cultural, economic and aesthetic values of those responsible for producing the object.[6]
Art historians may also work alongside or asart conservators, helping restore and conserve artworks. Conservation is a scientific field that is crucial to historians work, due to them needing to observe a work that is a condition good enough to be examined. Training in art conservation typically involves coursework inchemistry as well as the practice and history of art.[7]
In the 1970s,Linda Nochlin's essay "Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?" helped to ignite feminist art history and remains one of the most widely read essays about female artists. This was followed by a 1972College Art Association Panel, chaired by Nochlin, entitled "Eroticism and the Image of Woman in Nineteenth-Century Art". Within a decade, scores of papers, articles, and essays sustained a growing momentum, fueled by theSecond-wave feminist movement, of critical discourse surrounding women's interactions with the arts as both artists and subjects. In her pioneering essay, Nochlin applies a feminist critical framework to show systematic exclusion of women from art training, arguing that exclusion from practicing art as well as the canonical history of art was the consequence of cultural conditions which curtailed and restricted women from art producing fields.[9] The few who did succeed were treated as anomalies and did not provide a model for subsequent success.Griselda Pollock is another prominent feminist art historian, whose use of psychoanalytic theory is described above.
While feminist art history can focus on any time period and location, much attention has been given to the Modern era. Some of this scholarship centers on thefeminist art movement, which referred specifically to the experience of women. Often, feminist art history offers a critical "re-reading" of the Western art canon, such asCarol Duncan's re-interpretation ofLes Demoiselles d'Avignon. Two pioneers of the field areMary Garrard andNorma Broude. Their anthologiesFeminism and Art History: Questioning the Litany,The Expanding Discourse: Feminism and Art History, andReclaiming Feminist Agency: Feminist Art History After Postmodernism are substantial efforts to bring feminist perspectives into the discourse of art history. The pair also co-founded the Feminist Art History Conference.[10]
Art historians are often employed bymuseums due to their expertise in the field.Galleries, andarchives are places where art historians may be in charge of exhibits, research or collections, depending on specialization factors.[11]Museum studies, including the history of museum collecting and display, is now a specialized field of study, as is the history of collecting.
Giorgio Vasari, a Tuscan painter, sculptor and author of theLives of the Most Excellent Painters, Sculptors, and Architects, has been credited with writing the first truehistory of art.[13] He emphasized art's progression and development, which was a milestone in this field. His work was a personal and a historical account, featuring biographies of individual Italian artists, many of whom were his contemporaries and personal acquaintances. The most renowned of these wasMichelangelo.
Vasari's writings about art were enormously influential, and served as a model for many.[citation needed]
Scholars such asJohann Joachim Winckelmann (1717–1768) criticized Vasari's "cult" of artistic personality, and argued that the real emphasis in the study of art should be the views of the learned beholder and not the viewpoint of the artist.[citation needed] Winckelmann's writings thus were the beginnings ofart criticism. His two most notable works that introduced the concept of art criticism wereGedanken über die Nachahmung der griechischen Werke in der Malerei und Bildhauerkunst(Reflections on the Painting and Sculpture of the Greeks), published in 1755, andGeschichte der Kunst des Altertums (History of Art in Antiquity), published in 1764 (this is the first occurrence of the phrase 'history of art' in the title of a book).[14] Winckelmann critiqued the artistic excesses ofBaroque andRococo forms, and was instrumental in reforming taste in favor ofNeoclassicism. Winckelmann's work marked the entry of art history into the high-philosophical discourse ofGerman culture.[15]
Winckelmann was read avidly byJohann Wolfgang von Goethe andFriedrich Schiller, both of whom began to write on the history of art, and his account of theLaocoön group occasioned a response byLessing. The emergence of art as a major subject of philosophical speculation was solidified by the appearance ofImmanuel Kant'sCritique of Judgment in 1790, and was furthered byHegel'sLectures on Aesthetics. Hegel's philosophy served as the direct inspiration forKarl Schnaase's work. Schnaase'sNiederländische Briefe established the theoretical foundations for art history as an autonomous discipline, and hisGeschichte der bildenden Künste, one of the first historical surveys of the history of art from antiquity to the Renaissance, facilitated the teaching of art history in German-speaking universities. Schnaase's survey was published contemporaneously with a similar work byFranz Theodor Kugler.[citation needed]
Heinrich Wölfflin (1864–1945), who studied under Burckhardt in Basel, is considered to be one of the most influential scholars of modern art history.[16] He introduced a scientific approach to the history of art, focusing on three concepts.[17] Firstly, he attempted to study art using psychology, particularly by applying the work ofWilhelm Wundt. He argued, among other things, that art and architecture are good if they resemble the human body. For example, houses were good if theirfaçades looked like faces. Secondly, he introduced the idea of studying art through comparison. By comparing individual paintings to each other, he was able to make distinctions of style. His bookRenaissance and Baroque developed this idea, and was the first to show how these stylistic periods differed from one another. In contrast toGiorgio Vasari, Wölfflin was uninterested in the biographies of artists. He proposed the creation of an "art history without names."[18] He also studied art based on ideas ofnationhood. He was particularly interested in whether there was an inherently "Italian" and an inherently "German" style. This last interest was most fully articulated in his monograph on the German artistAlbrecht Dürer.[19]
In the late 19th century, a major school of art-historical thought developed at theUniversity of Vienna. The first generation of the Vienna School was dominated byAlois Riegl andFranz Wickhoff, both students ofMoritz Thausing, and was characterized by a tendency to reassess neglected or disparaged periods in the history of art. Riegl and Wickhoff both wrote extensively on the art oflate antiquity, which before them had been considered as a period of decline from the classical ideal. Riegl also contributed to the revaluation of the Baroque.[citation needed]
The next generation of professors at Vienna includedMax Dvořák,Julius von Schlosser, Hans Tietze, Karl Maria Swoboda, andJosef Strzygowski. A number of the most important twentieth-century art historians, includingErnst Gombrich, received their degrees at Vienna at this time. The term "Second Vienna School" (or "New Vienna School") usually refers to the following generation of Viennese scholars, includingHans Sedlmayr, Otto Pächt, and Guido Kaschnitz von Weinberg. These scholars began in the 1930s to return to the work of the first generation, particularly to Riegl and his concept ofKunstwollen, and attempted to develop it into a full-blown art-historical methodology. Sedlmayr, in particular, rejected the minute study of iconography, patronage, and other approaches grounded in historical context, preferring instead to concentrate on the aesthetic qualities of a work of art. As a result, the Second Vienna School gained a reputation for unrestrained and irresponsibleformalism. This latter tendency was, however, by no means shared by all members of the school; Pächt, for example, was himself Jewish, and was forced to leave Vienna in the 1930s.[citation needed]
In 1920, a group of scholars gathered inHamburg to study Iconography. The most prominent among them wereErwin Panofsky,Aby Warburg,Fritz Saxl andGertrud Bing. Together they developed much of the vocabulary that continues to be used in the 21st century by art historians. "Iconography"—with roots meaning "symbols from writing" refers to subject matter of art derived from written sources—especially scripture and mythology. "Iconology" is a broader term that referred to all symbolism, whether derived from a specific text or not. Today art historians sometimes use these terms interchangeably.
Panofsky, in his early work, also developed the theories of Riegl, but became eventually more preoccupied with iconography, and in particular with the transmission of themes related to classical antiquity in the Middle Ages and Renaissance. In this respect his interests coincided with those of Warburg, the son of a wealthy family who had assembled a library in Hamburg, devoted to the study of the classical tradition in later art and culture. Under Saxl's auspices, this library was developed into a research institute, affiliated with theUniversity of Hamburg, where Panofsky taught.
Warburg died in 1929, and in the 1930s Saxl and Panofsky, both Jewish, were forced to leave Hamburg. Saxl settled in London, bringing Warburg's library with him and establishing theWarburg Institute. Panofsky settled in Princeton at theInstitute for Advanced Study. In this respect they were part of an extraordinary influx of German art historians into the English-speaking academy in the 1930s. These scholars were largely responsible for establishing art history as a legitimate field of study in the English-speaking world, and the influence of Panofsky's methodology, in particular, determined the course of American art history for a generation.[citation needed]
Within the Frankfurt School, philosopherWalter Benjamin, wrote his 1935 essay "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction", in which Benjamin argued that an "aura" is found within artworks: its original presence in time and space.[20] He suggests a work of art's aura is in a state of decay because it is becoming more and more difficult to apprehend the time and space in which a piece of art is created. Benjamin's theory closely relates toAffect theory.[20]
Class society has also been a foundation for studying the development of the arts. In the early 20th Century and late 19th, historical materialism was an active theory of history that was beginning to gain traction, and still to this day is used worldwide by art historians.[21] Georgi Plekhanov is considered to be a pioneer in progressing the use of materialist thinking within the study of art. His work "Historical Materialism and the Arts" written in 1899, describes how historical materialism can be used against anidealist conclusion of art to reach a clearer outlook on the topic.[22] Marxists, like Plekhanov, argue that while artistic periods and revolutions obey their own logic, ultimately art is confined within the limits of the mode of production. Importantly, Marxists believe that the ideas in society, including art, are an expression of one or another of the contending classes existing in that mode of production.[23]
In the United States, one of the most important art history organization is theCollege Art Association.[24] It organizes an annual conference and publishes theArt Bulletin andArt Journal. Similar organizations exist in other parts of the world, as well as for specializations, such asarchitectural history and Renaissance art history. In the UK, for example, theAssociation of Art Historians is the premiere organization, and it publishes a journal titledArt History.
Wölfflin, H. (1915, trans. 1932).Principles of Art History: The Problem of the Development of Style in Later Art. New York: Dover Publications.
Hauser, A. (1959).The Philosophy of Art History. New York: Knopf.
Arntzen, E. and Rainwater, R. (1980).Guide to the Literature of Art History. Chicago: American Library Association.
Holly, M. A. (1984).Panofsky and the Foundations of Art History. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.
Johnson, W. M. (1988).Art History: Its Use and Abuse. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Carrier, D. (1991).Principles of Art History Writing. University Park, Pa: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Kemal, Salim and Ivan Gaskell (1991).The Language of Art History. Cambridge University Press.ISBN0-521-44598-1
Fitzpatrick, Virginia L. (1992).Art History: A Contextual Inquiry Course. Point of view series. Reston, Virginia: National Art Education Association.ISBN978-0937652596
Minor, Vernon Hyde (1994).Critical Theory of Art History. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Adams, L. (1996).The Methodologies of Art: An Introduction. New York: IconEditions.
Frazier, N. (1999).The Penguin Concise Dictionary of Art History. New York: Penguin Reference.
Pollock, G. (1999).Differencing the Canon. Routledge.ISBN0-415-06700-6
Harrison, Charles, Paul Wood, and Jason Gaiger (2000).Art in Theory 1648–1815: An Anthology of Changing Ideas. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Minor, Vernon Hyde (2001).Art History's History. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Robinson, Hilary, ed. (2001).Feminism – Art – Theory: An Anthology 1968–2001. 2nd edition:1968-2014 (2015). Hoboken, New Jersey:Wiley-Blackwell.
Clark, T. J. (2001).Farewell to an Idea: Episodes from a History of Modernism. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Buchloh, Benjamin (2001).Neo-Avantgarde and Culture Industry. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Mansfield, Elizabeth (2002).Art History and Its Institutions: Foundations of a Discipline. Routledge.ISBN0-415-22868-9
Murray, Chris (2003).Key Writers on Art. 2 vols, Routledge Key Guides. London: Routledge.
Harrison, Charles, and Paul Wood (2003).Art in Theory, 1900–2000: An Anthology of Changing Ideas. 2nd ed. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell.
![[icon]](/mt/?noimg=&dark=on&url=https%3a%2f%2fen.wikipedia.org%2fwiki%2fFile%3aWiki_letter_w_cropped.svg)
.jpg)
