art critics, art historians and art teaching

Art Critics, Art Historians and Art TeachingAuthor(s): Horst W. JansonSource: Art Journal, Vol. 32, No. 4 (Summer, 1973), pp. 424-425+428Published by: College Art AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/775695 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 22:33

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

College Art Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Art Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.125 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 22:33:50 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=caa

http://www.jstor.org/stable/775695?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Art Critics, Art Historians and Art Teaching

Horst W. Janson

In looking over the program of this Conference, I was bemused by the fact that among the speakers there are no fewer than eight who are defined as "art critics and art historians" while there are only three "art historians" pure and simple and not a single "art critic" pure and simple. The latter species, apparently, does not exist. We are all art historians, but if we write about contemporary art we are also critics, otherwise not.

Since I, according to the program, am a plain art historian, I hope I may be for- given if I cast a brief glance at the history of the concept of "criticism." The term was well established, and is amply ex- plained, in the Cyclopaedia of Ephraim Chambers, first issued in 1727, which de- fines it as "the art of judging concerning discourse and writings." We are further informed that the ordinary use of the word is restrained to literary criticism, which is of two kinds: factual criticism, which discerns "the real works of an author, the real author of a work, the genuine reading of a text"; and qualitative criticism, "the art of judging of works of genius, their excellencies and defects." Ac- cording to Chambers, criticism, "the art of judging," can also be applied to philoso- phy, religion, and politics, as well as to antiques. This last subspecies, the only one listed that relates to the visual arts, "consists in distinguishing genuine med- als, and the different taste and spirit found among them, according to the different people, the different country, and the different times wherein they were struck; the distinguishing between what is

HORST W. JANSON, well known art historian, is author of a widely used textbook on The History of Art, as well as of several scholarly volumes and articles. A scholar who is vitally interested in teaching, he is working toward the expansion of art history teaching in high schools through the Advanced Placement Pro- gram. This paper was read at a Confer- ence on Art Criticism and Art Education sponsored by New York University and the New York State Council on the Arts in cooperation with the American Section of the International Association of Art Critics and the Institute for the Study of Art Education. The Conference was held at the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum in May, 1970 and the findings were recently published. U

cast and what struck; what has been re- touched, and repaired or added, from what is really antique; the genuine from the spurious, etc., and to decypher and ex- plain them, etc."

In other words, art criticism, to the extent that the concept existed in the early eighteenth century, applies exclusively to works of the past and corresponds to what we today would call "connoisseurship." And the connoisseur, if I may quote Er- win Panofsky's definition, is simply "a la- conic art historian" while the art historian is "a loquacious connoisseur." It would seem, then, that with regard to the present-day definition of the art critic as an art historian dealing with contemporary art, the child has been father to the man: originally, the art critic was a connoisseur of antiques, i.e. an art historian pure and simple, while nobody claiming intellectual respectability dealt with contemporary art. How and when, we must ask, did the distinction between the art historian and the art critic come about? To what extent does it persist today?

I submit that the split began to appear one generation after Chambers, in the prototypical figures of Winckelmann and Diderot. Although he occasionally dealt with the art of his own day, hailing Mengs as the leader of a return to the "noble simplicity" of the Greeks, Winck- elmann is acknowledged as the founding father of art history as a humanistic discipline. Diderot, in contrast, exemplified the art critic who is not an art historian. He focuses entirely on the art of his own time, and the framework of his criticism is far wider than art: it is a critique of society and a desire to change it. Diderot thus stands at the beginning of a line that leads to Baudelaire, to Ruskin, and ulti- mately to Herbert Read. I cannot think of a living representative, but perhaps the breed is not yet extinct. None of these critics can claim any significance as art historians, nor did they contribute to the growth of the discipline, yet they are important to art historians. If their ideas provide no historic insights, they are themselves historic facts to the extent that they helped to shape the art of their time. Needless to say, this was, and is, a legitimate role, but a role distinct from that of the art historian. Perhaps the influence of these critics as taste-makers of their time could be compared to that of important political commentators (e.g., Walter Lippmann) who may or may not have a certain historical perspective but whose impact is certainly not measured by the validity of their historic insights. In any event, for some one hundred and fifty years after Winckelmann the art historian relinquished the concern with contempo-

rary art to critics of the Diderot type; if he had any articulate opinions on the art of his own time, they were likely to be "academic" in every sense of the term.

Recently, however, this dichotomy has been bridged to an ever greater extent. Ever since the 1930's, art historians have acknowledged the scholarly study of the very recent past (of "modern art," broadly speaking) as a legitimate concern, so that today Ph D dissertations can be written on topics such as Pop art. This development is a distinctively American contribution, pioneered by Alfred Barr and The Museum of Modern Art and now widely followed in Europe. Behind it we can sense a realization that the art historian's traditional ideal of complete ob- jectivity does not operate in practice even if he confines himself to being a "connoisseur of antiques." No matter how remote from the present-day world his area of study, it demands the exercise of the critical faculty, of "the art of judgment" as Chambers put it. Hence the difference between the distant and the recent past as the art historian's subject of study (there is, of course, no such thing as "the present," strictly speaking) became one of degree rather than of principle. One of the consequences of this reorientation among art historians has been that college and university departments of art history have become training grounds of art critics. It seems to me entirely realistic, then, that the program of this conference acknowl- edges only "art historians" and "art critics, art historians" (I hesitate proposing to call them "hyphenated art critics") and no "art critics" pure and simple. At long last, it seems, Diderot is dead, along with God and the Avant-Garde.

I hope you won't think this lengthy in- troduction to the main body of my re- marks a mere academic exercise. It per- mits us, I think, to draw several useful conclusions. If it is true that today the distinction between the art historian and the art critic is only one of emphasis, rather than of goal or principle, then the prospects of art criticism in higher education do not depend on our establishing the art critic on college and university faculties as an animal distinct from the art historian, nor on our establishing courses in art criticism as distinct from courses in art history. A course in art history which submerges the teacher's critical faculty in a welter of factual detail is a poorly taught course from any point of view: the student has a right to be shown the critical reasoning behind the choice of factual detail. Similarly, a course in "art analysis," "art appreciation," or "princi- ples of criticism" that is devoid of historical perspective is a poorly taught course

424



from any point of view: it either indoctri- nates the student or leaves him with the impression that all responses to works of art are equally subjective and equally valid (or invalid).

I am implying here that we cannot make any statements about artistic values that are valid for all times and places. But I am also implying that we are under obligation to search for "a truth for our time and place," and that while men may legitimately differ as to what that truth is, their claim to be listened to seriously rests on how much of their intellectual and emotional resources they have invested in the search. And I believe this to be true with respect to the art of the past as much as the art of our own day. The past, if it is to remain "alive," needs constant rein- terpretation; and let us remember that the past began an instant ago. On the other hand, I do not believe that historic sequence is the only desirable pattern for art courses. Other patterns are not only possible but under certain circumstances may be preferable. This is a matter of "teaching strategy," which in turn de- pends upon our goals.

Let me address myself to this question of goals. I shall leave aside the training of the professional art historians of the future-an important subject but rather too narrow for our present purpose-and ask what our goals should be with respect to the general college population: the student who may take only one course in art, or who may major in that field, but who will not be involved with art profession- ally after graduation. This student, I think we will all agree, is our primary responsibility. At the time he enters college as a freshman, he is more than likely to have no relationship to the visual arts; he may have a few received opinions but no capacity for independent experience nor any awareness that his visual environment is important to him; nor, for that matter, that in some measure he shares responsibility for his visual environment. First- year college students who are asked what field they intend to major in, hardly ever pick art; they have to discover the subject in the course of their college career, and a good many discover it too late to do them much good. This situation may change to some extent in the future if and as present efforts to give art a more important place in the high school curriculum begin to bear fruit. If it does, we may have a better starting point but our goals are not likely to be very different from what they are today.

What, then, should these goals be? I am using the plural, for I believe there are several. Some of them we are fulfilling reasonably well today while others are be-

ing realized poorly if at all. One goal which on the whole we are fulfilling well is to take advantage of the fact that the history of art, unlike political and social history and to a far greater degree than the history of literature or music, deals with material that is directly accessible to a modern audience. Political and social history presents the student with reports of events, rather than with the events themselves, and the literature and music of the past are obstructed by language barriers of various kinds; while the visual arts, no matter how remote or unfamiliar their origin, speak to us directly (though often ambiguously). The much-maligned yet still prevalent introductory art history course that takes the student from "the Caves of Altamira to the Ecole de Paris" is unique among college courses for its historic sweep. Usually, it is the only course that gives the student at least a fleeting glimpse of the Stone Age (Old and New), of Egypt and the Ancient Near East. And even in more familiar cultural territory such as Greece, Rome, the Middle Ages, and the Renaissance, the monuments serve as vivid, direct witnesses of human achievement and thus bring the past alive to the student. In commenting on these monuments, the instructor inevi- tably has to deal with their cultural ma- trix as well, so that they become carriers of information on religion, politics, technology, and a host of other data. One might object that such use of the history of art as a "conveyor belt" for cultural history is no more than an ancillary function. True enough, from the professional scholar's point of view, but an ancillary function that can be of eminent educa- tional value. It must be admitted, however, that where this approach is the dom- inant one the student is likely to come away thinking of works of art as testi- mony of other things rather than as works of art. The temptation to present works of art as "typical of a given civilization," as "specimens" or "examples" of a class, is usually too great to be resisted. Who can take time out, when dealing with, say, Egypt in a survey course, to demonstrate to his students that even in what may at first glance seem to be a highly uniform class of objects every work of art has its own unique qualities, and that Egyptian art, like that of any other time, includes works of genius as well as of mediocrity? One way to gain the necessary leisure would be to insist that students read and absorb the chapters on Egypt in their textbook beforehand, so that the instructor does not have to duplicate the con- tents of the text and can devote his time in class to a discussion of quality and individuality in Egyptian art. To do this

effectively, he will of course have to know a good deal more about Egyptian art than he probably does, and few instructors, I suspect, are willing to go to the necessary trouble. A critical understanding of Egyp- tian art on its own terms is not easy to achieve; it demands an intimacy with the material and its cultural background such as is rarely found outside the small circle of specialists. Yet we can at least approach this intimacy if we realize that nothing less will do. In other words, we must not forget our obligation to be art critics as well as historians, even when we deal with such remote areas as ancient Egypt.

In advanced undergraduate courses, which cover smaller areas in more lei- surely and intensive fashion, the historical-critical balance is likely to be better, and the student will learn correspond- ingly more about the individuality and quality of works of art. There is, however, one goal that the prevailing course structure in college art departments is not geared to achieve and therefore achieves only by indirection if it does so at all; and that is equipping the student to act intelligently and responsibly as an art patron. The term "art patron" tends to evoke the image of a wealthy private col- lector haunting auction rooms and deal- ers' galleries in search of expensive pictures-pictures which he may want to own as status symbols rather than for their own sake. Yet it should be obvious that all of us are art patrons willy-nillv, in the sense that we are faced with aesthetic choices whether we want to or not. Even the expenditure of a dollar's worth for cups and saucers at the five and dime forces us to choose among several available shapes and patterns. If we get involved with the community in which we live, we can influence zoning laws and town planning decisions and have a share in shaping our entire "visual ecology." Nor can we renounce our role as art patrons, any more than we can withdraw from participation in politics. Not voting, or voting by stereotype ("my family have been Democrats as far back as any of us can remember"), does not remove us from the political process and does not re- lieve us of responsibility for the outcome. The same is surely true if we acquiesce in art patronage decisions, personal or com- munal, that are made by others. We would like, then, to mold the student of today into the art patron of tomorrow, to equip him for responsible citizenship in the world of the visual arts, whether it be in the purchase of household goods, mem- bership in museum associations, concern with the architectural environment, or

(Continued on page 428)

425



lute break from tradition. One of the major indigenous qualities of art-as-idea is participatory engagement. Seeing the work one is called upon to match wits and creativity with the artist. It is con- ceivable that this reliance on the observer as an active participant can ignite a new awareness of art objects of the past.

It was concluded that the major change in the relationship of modern art museums to artists has been a switch from in- dependence to interdependence. Besides being a museum's raw material, artists have become critics whose judgments may be as valid as those administering the institutions.

Other topics discussed, though not re- solved, included the legal and moral rights of artists to decide when and in which contexts to exhibit their work, the problems of payments to the artist for the loan of work, the importance of the museum as a place in which an artist can ex- press himself without regard to commer- cial pursuits or political interference, and the philosophical, moral, and practical problems concerning museum priorities, obligation, and responsibilities toward both the artist and the public.

lute break from tradition. One of the major indigenous qualities of art-as-idea is participatory engagement. Seeing the work one is called upon to match wits and creativity with the artist. It is con- ceivable that this reliance on the observer as an active participant can ignite a new awareness of art objects of the past.

It was concluded that the major change in the relationship of modern art museums to artists has been a switch from in- dependence to interdependence. Besides being a museum's raw material, artists have become critics whose judgments may be as valid as those administering the institutions.

Other topics discussed, though not re- solved, included the legal and moral rights of artists to decide when and in which contexts to exhibit their work, the problems of payments to the artist for the loan of work, the importance of the museum as a place in which an artist can ex- press himself without regard to commer- cial pursuits or political interference, and the philosophical, moral, and practical problems concerning museum priorities, obligation, and responsibilities toward both the artist and the public.

(Continued from page 425)

any number of similar opportunities to exercise his judgment.

How this goal is to be achieved within the framework of a college education is a vexing problem to which we have no ready answers. To indoctrinate the student with a specific aesthetic attitude, such as that of the Bauhaus, clearly will not serve our purpose. The "Bauhaus mentality" may have been admirably suited to the 1920's but is surely out- moded today. Perhaps what we need-and what few of us are equipped to teach well -is a more integrative approach to the art of the past, embracing not only the traditional "major arts" of architecture, sculp- ture, and painting, but the whole range of "minor" or applied arts, including dwellings and costume. The latter fields are now largely the preserve of specialists, and are rarely taught. I think their educa- tional value remains to be discovered, and the sooner the better, if we are to bring art and life closer together in our courses than they are today. Another way of tack- ling our goal might be the "project approach": seminars on specific themes of "art in everyday life," or on a current ur- ban renewal scheme that could be studied from every angle that has influenced the form it took. It would also be rewarding to study an individual building-let us say, Le Corbusier's Unite d'Habitation or Mies van der Rohe's Seagram Building-

(Continued from page 425)

any number of similar opportunities to exercise his judgment.

How this goal is to be achieved within the framework of a college education is a vexing problem to which we have no ready answers. To indoctrinate the student with a specific aesthetic attitude, such as that of the Bauhaus, clearly will not serve our purpose. The "Bauhaus mentality" may have been admirably suited to the 1920's but is surely out- moded today. Perhaps what we need-and what few of us are equipped to teach well -is a more integrative approach to the art of the past, embracing not only the traditional "major arts" of architecture, sculp- ture, and painting, but the whole range of "minor" or applied arts, including dwellings and costume. The latter fields are now largely the preserve of specialists, and are rarely taught. I think their educa- tional value remains to be discovered, and the sooner the better, if we are to bring art and life closer together in our courses than they are today. Another way of tack- ling our goal might be the "project approach": seminars on specific themes of "art in everyday life," or on a current ur- ban renewal scheme that could be studied from every angle that has influenced the form it took. It would also be rewarding to study an individual building-let us say, Le Corbusier's Unite d'Habitation or Mies van der Rohe's Seagram Building-

It was predictable but still interesting to note that the delegates from the Social- ist countries placed great stress on the museum's responsibilities to the public. However, as the artists in those countries work more directly in the service of the public good, different standards are exer- cised.

While the relationship between artists and museums of modern art cannot at this time be chartered, the ICOM conference nevertheless formulated a series of proposals in Warsaw "to be submitted to the museum profession":

1. In view of the double orientation of modern art museums, which on the one hand comprise conservation and preservation of collections and on the other such forum characteristics as ex- perimental and innovation activities, the promotion of information as well as exchange of views between artist and public, it seems indicated that the simul- taneous functioning of the two above- named components within the framework of a single institution is highly desirable.

2. Accordingly staffs of modern art museums should make every effort to

It was predictable but still interesting to note that the delegates from the Social- ist countries placed great stress on the museum's responsibilities to the public. However, as the artists in those countries work more directly in the service of the public good, different standards are exer- cised.

While the relationship between artists and museums of modern art cannot at this time be chartered, the ICOM conference nevertheless formulated a series of proposals in Warsaw "to be submitted to the museum profession":

1. In view of the double orientation of modern art museums, which on the one hand comprise conservation and preservation of collections and on the other such forum characteristics as ex- perimental and innovation activities, the promotion of information as well as exchange of views between artist and public, it seems indicated that the simul- taneous functioning of the two above- named components within the framework of a single institution is highly desirable.

2. Accordingly staffs of modern art museums should make every effort to

in depth for an entire semester. Or one might devote a course to the history of the chair, from tree stump to inflatable plastics, or to that of lighting fixtures, from oil lamps to fluorescent tubes. There are endless possibilities of fruitful experi- mentation here, if we will be only bold enough to seize them. But let me end on a cautionary note: the goal of "citizenship training" in the visual arts which I have outlined here should not replace the present course structure but supplement and

in depth for an entire semester. Or one might devote a course to the history of the chair, from tree stump to inflatable plastics, or to that of lighting fixtures, from oil lamps to fluorescent tubes. There are endless possibilities of fruitful experi- mentation here, if we will be only bold enough to seize them. But let me end on a cautionary note: the goal of "citizenship training" in the visual arts which I have outlined here should not replace the present course structure but supplement and

enlist the artist in a common partner- ship, because the artist alters the char- acter of a modern art museum and its public role by enlarging and redefining art itself through his work and ideas.

3. The creative and animating pres- ence of the artist is essential in a modern art museum. Through his work within the museum, which in this manner has become a studio and laboratory, the artist would be able to move from his presently marginal position in society toward one of central and public significance. As for the public, it will discover the seriousness of the artist's concern and will gain a deeper understanding into his thoughts and his art.

4. The modern art museum as cus- todian of the artist's work and inter- preter of his ideas is obligated to consider his intentions as much as this is at all possible. At the same time the museum is bound to consider the work of art in its fundamental universal con- text.

PETER SELZ University Art Museum University of California, Berkeley

enlist the artist in a common partner- ship, because the artist alters the char- acter of a modern art museum and its public role by enlarging and redefining art itself through his work and ideas.

3. The creative and animating pres- ence of the artist is essential in a modern art museum. Through his work within the museum, which in this manner has become a studio and laboratory, the artist would be able to move from his presently marginal position in society toward one of central and public significance. As for the public, it will discover the seriousness of the artist's concern and will gain a deeper understanding into his thoughts and his art.

4. The modern art museum as cus- todian of the artist's work and inter- preter of his ideas is obligated to consider his intentions as much as this is at all possible. At the same time the museum is bound to consider the work of art in its fundamental universal con- text.

PETER SELZ University Art Museum University of California, Berkeley

enrich it. We cannot afford to lose what we now have, because we haven't had it for very long: except for a few pioneering institutions along the Eastern seaboard, the history and criticism of the visual arts as a standard part of the college curriculum is so recent a growth that it has hap- pened within living memory of people of my age, i.e. in the last 35 years. Let us do better what we are doing now, and let us expand our goals. But let us, I plead, not be mesmerized by "relevance."

enrich it. We cannot afford to lose what we now have, because we haven't had it for very long: except for a few pioneering institutions along the Eastern seaboard, the history and criticism of the visual arts as a standard part of the college curriculum is so recent a growth that it has hap- pened within living memory of people of my age, i.e. in the last 35 years. Let us do better what we are doing now, and let us expand our goals. But let us, I plead, not be mesmerized by "relevance."

Robert Frank, Hoboken Flag, photograph, University of Florida, Gainesville. Robert Frank, Hoboken Flag, photograph, University of Florida, Gainesville.

428 428



art critics, art historians and art teaching

Documents