8/2/07 - History of Art - Art History and Art Criticism

Third year History of Art students must complete an art folio project. They review four different exhibitions in four short articles (each 750 words). They must consider coherence, quality of work, grouping, height, lighting and other aspects of the exhibitions. It is a critical reaction with no bibliography and no footnotes, therefore they adopt the role of art critic.

Do we need art criticism? Why?

There are many art journals: Apollo, Artforum, Art in America, Artist's Newsletter, Art Monthly, Blueprint, Burlington Magazine, Frieze, Nude. All specialise in various areas. As well as these, there are literary and political newspapers.

The Caravaggio/Rembrandt exhibition of 2006 at the Van Gogh Museum was innovative. The title of one review was more dramatic than the exhibition title, and used boxing references to excite the reader: "Two geniuses going 15 rounds for the heavyweight belt of baroque: but with Carvaggio and Rembrandt in the ring, is it to tough to call? asks Waldemar Janusczak" (Sunday Times, 12 March 2006). The two paintings were placed side by side with their dramatic titles and no explanation was given.

An exhibition of the works of Ruisdael was named His Beloved Country: a patriotic view of one's country depicted by Ruisdael. Quotes from complimentary critics were placed alongside, to persuade us that the exhibition was worth seeing: "the Royal Academy's marvellous show."

But art criticism can be more formal, objective and factual.

According to Michael Fried, "There is nothing binding in the value judgements of formal criticism. All judgement of value begin and end with an experience, or ought to ... and if someone does not feel that Manet's Dejeuner sur l'herbe, Matisse's Piano Lesson or Pollock's Autumn Rhythm are superb paintings, no critical argument can take the place of feeling it." For Baudelaire, "criticism is partial, passionate and political." Baudelaire asserted that he would only analyse something that he liked; yet art critics cannot afford to do this. In Elkins' opinion, "When art criticism is considered as an evaluative activity, it can be conceived either as personal response without explicit purpose or thesis, or as measured judgement governed by premeditated principles."

Modern art criticism is more dogmatic and intimate.

Greenberg wrote a criticism that was not to be found elsewhere: he said that Manet's Dejeuner sur l'herbe would look better cropped. This cannot be proven, however.

Martelli frequented Café Michelangelo in Florence and was part of the academic world. He rejected his school in 1870 in favour of plein air painting and he became a collector, commissioner and supporter of plein air artists. He was close to Degas, Pissarro and Manet and he distinguished these from other artists. Martelli took impressionist ideas to Florence and aided its influence.

Greenberg promoted American expressionists, for example, Pollock and his followers. He helped establish the style and the artists in the post-war period. He rejected pop art, for which he was attacked and accused of being dogmatic and having a preference for popular culture. Greenberg thought painting was about perception, while the avant-garde were more concerned with cause.

In the examples of Greenberg and Martelli, art history is separate from art criticism. But art historians sometimes write books and reviews, and not all art history is objective, e.g. in Wölfflin's Renaissance and Baroque, his descriptions are strong judgements on works of art.

Art history or art criticism?
1. Important art historians have created persuasive re-evaluations of the past, e.g. Heinrich Wölfflin (1864-1945), Renaissance and Baroque (1888).

2. Important art historical enterprises have been conceived as art criticism, e.g. Vasari, Lives of the Artists, 1550, and Pacheco, Art of Painting, 1649. These present a mixture of advocacy and analysis.

3. Some art criticism is conceived for the sake of knowledge only, e.g. Pliny the Elder (23-79 AD), Natural History, John Dewey and Lionelli Venturi, History of Art Criticism, 1936.

John Dewey, 1930: "we lay hold of the full import of a work of art only as we go through in our own vital processes the processes the artist went through in producing the work."

Lionelli Venturi: "The gravest error was the distinction between art history and art criticism."