Art History without Theory

Critical Inquiry 14 (2):354-378 (1988)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The theories I have outlined suggest that by displacing but not excluding theory, art historical practice at once grounds itself in empiricism and implies an acceptance of theory’s claim that it cannot be so grounded. But beyond descriptions like this, the theories are not a helpful way to understand practice because they cannot account for its persistence except by pointing to its transgressions and entanglements in self-contradiction. Nor does it help to say, pace Steven Knapp, Walter Benn Michaels, and Stanley Fish, that strong theory can have no consequences, because the reason theory has no consequences in this instance is not the impossibility of theory’s transcendence , but a combination of the conventions, desires, and beliefs of practicing historians.14 Theoretical approaches must bypass the concerns of practice because practice has no position which can be argued alongside theory’s positions. There are two reasons why a “Defense of Empiricism in Art History” has not been written. First, art historical practice does not incorporate even a local or heuristic theory to explain or discuss itself. Second, its “position” is not a latent theory, waiting to be eloquently stated, but something which is presupposed in a vague and variable manner by the art historical texts themselves. Art historical practice, for example, has an objectivist intention: it takes itself to be “a science, with definite principles and techniques,” which can exclude theory and generate texts by appealing only to previous nontheoretical texts and to the facts.15 This intention is rarely stated, exasperatingly slippery to formulate clearly, and even incoherent when it is applied to existing texts; but this is so precisely because it works by not being included in the texts. If some version of it were stated at the outset of a monograph, it would cast doubt on the entire enterprise and lead the reader to conclude incorrectly that practice is dependent on theory, and uncertain theory at that. In its unstated form, the objectivist intention allows narrative practice to continue unimpeded. James Elkins is a doctoral candidate at the University of Chicago. This article is from a work in progress concerned with the influence of writing conventions on the history of art

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 90,616

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

How to change history.Theodore Koditschek - 2013 - History and Theory 52 (3):433-450.
On Monstrously Ambiguous Paintings.James Elkins - 1993 - History and Theory 32 (3):227-247.
What does Peirce's Sign System Have to Say to Art History?James Elkins - 2003 - Culture, Theory, and Critique 44 (1):5-22.
Time after time.Rex Butler - 2014 - History of European Ideas 40 (1):1-13.
Whitney Davis's General Theory of Visual Culture. [REVIEW]James Elkins - 2012 - College Art Association Books Reviews.
Logic and images in art history.James Elkins - 1999 - Perspectives on Science 7 (2):151-180.
The individual and the cosmos in Renaissance philosophy.Ernst Cassirer - 1963 - Mineola, N.Y.: Dover Publications. Edited by Mario Domandi.
Cognition and Eros: a critique of the Kantian paradigm.Robin May Schott - 1988 - University Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania State University Press.
The continuing modesty of history.Elizabeth Deeds Ermarth - 2012 - History and Theory 51 (3):381-396.

Analytics

Added to PP
2014-01-17

Downloads
21 (#631,231)

6 months
2 (#670,035)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

James Elkins
School of the Art Institute of Chicago

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references